Wild Bill
-
Posts
6,562 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Wild Bill
-
-
as it should be...underestimating storms gets people killed...being complacent and unprepared for the worst isn't smart....
Well, it can be hard to strike a balance. Hyberbole brings its own problems. Crying wolf too many times strains credibility and people stop listening. That's just human nature.
Also, unnecessary preparation can be not only inconvenient but damned expensive.
Murphy's Law would imply that people will eventually become complacent of false alarms.
THAT is when there WILL be a wolf at the door!
-
No the Rafale would allow low cost interdiction without stressing the f35 frame.
Just curious, does the Rafale have similar stealth capabilites or do they come with bullseyes already painted on the wings?
-
You're talking about an effort to ban unions altogether - which would be a giant political fight. Also, the courts would probably strike it down so it wouldn't be worth it, strategically. If you want to look at strategies for fighting labour in Ontario, Mike Harris was as hardball as it gets and he also made the most headway IMO.
Actually, I'm NOT talking about banning unions. I'm talking about firing every teacher that is playing this work to rule game!
Mass firings may be legal. The severance costs might be enormous, considering how the median age of teachers is getting up there. Still, a government like McGuinty's wouldn't care. If they would squander over $240 million dollars just to try to keep a seat for themselves over a power station that proves that there are politicians that might not care about the finances if it could win them an election.
Perhaps a government could claim cause for firing. That would eliminate any settlement lawsuits and reduce the payout to the minimum set by the Labour Act. I know from personal experience that isn't really very much.
Even worse for teachers, while private sector salaried or professional workers may launch a lawsuit and get FAR more than the minimum a union worker cannot! If they are represented by their union they can't launch such a private lawsuit and must rely on the bargaining power of their union. That may or may not be a tidy sum but with both a union and a government involved the teachers would be a lot older before things were resolved.
So I wouldn't be so sure, Michael. I would agree it would be a mess but if public sentiment intensifies against teachers to the point where it could make the difference in getting a party into power I wouldn't count out anything.
Meanwhile, the teachers' union seems to totally not care about the level of public support. That arrogance may eventually cost them.
I think I will try to google if home schooling has been growing any faster these past few years.
-
Burning/incinerating trash causes that nasty CO2 to be spewed into the air.
No, it doesn't! Maybe it did half a century ago but not necessary to do so today.
There are a number of technologies, perhaps the most widely used involving plasma furnaces, that burn trash at unimaginably high temperatures!
These installations have been used for over 20 years in many locations. They are as green as anyone could ask. Some are actually covered with grass and trees to make a park and are hidden within the very communities they serve.
You really should get out more, GH! I'm starting to think you live in Amish Country!
-
What does a travel advisory have to do with immigrants coming into Canada and the criminality or not of same?
Nobody here denies that criminal elements exist in our applicants. The issue is are they convicted criminals, have they done their penance and enough time has lapsed for them to re-apply?
We do not however invite criminals (felony convictions) to just up and apply.
Sorry! Grabbed your post to reply with by mistake. I was replying to the premise that there IS no problem with many Jamaican immigrants, particularly those from one area of the island.
As for allowing criminals into Canada, I believe on of those links points out that we do that very thing, then fight with them for 10 or 20 years before we can deport them.
The issue of deportation and all the problems trying to get rid not just of criminals but those who lied on their applications is worth a whole thread in itself!
-
It's just something I recall reading several years ago, and
I think if you're interested in that you should research the case law on Aboriginal rights.
It is an interesting and evolving topic for those who have concerns about the issues.
I don't have to spend my time researching aboriginal rights. I don't care! What's more, I have always believed that aboriginals have been screwed by our governments. So has everyone else. What makes natives special?
The only complaint I have with natives is HOW Six Nations protested at Caledonia. Not WHY! They have many good points to explain their beefs. Rather, I thought they used tactics of thuggery that affected the townsfolk and not the federal and provincial governments who were not only those responsible but also the only ones who could address the SN concerrns.
Whacking old men with two-by-fours, road blockades, intimidating innnocent people, and blowing up electrical installations did nothing to disturb McGuinty's sleep! As I have said many times in posts on MLW, if native protestors had wanted to roar through McGuinty's back yard on their ATVs some night, I would have chipped in for the gas!
-
I don't know that I would use the word "blame" ... but there was a fight to which you made no reference. "Somehow it all changed" and so on...
That option isn't realistic, IMO. The fight involved would be huge, and with the legalities it would take years to resolve.
How the teachers have been negotiating ? How about how the government passed a law that took away their rights and included a provision that it could be appealed ? Ham fisted, to say the least.
I don't know about the legalities. What legalities did Reagan face? Does the Premier of a province have the power?
What if he simply did it? The teachers would of course go to the courts but that could take months. In the meantime, they would be replaced. It's much harder to fight after the fact. Even if the teachers eventually won they would have paid a huge cost in lost wages. A premier would not lose at all if what he did was popular with the voters.
As far as how teachers negotiate, just because the government was unfair does not make teachers automatically saints. In my view, BOTH teachers and McGuinty's government have serious faults!
I stand by position as to how teachers are acting more like a militant UAW union than professionals. I don't see how they can possibly be both. They are no longer what they were and should never pretend to claim they are. Actions speak louder than words.
-
Michael, I have lived in this province since 1960. My oldest was in elementary school in 1995. I remember!
I wondered how long before someone wanted to blame it all on Mike Harris.
The changes I wrote about were well entrenched by the late 80's, if not sooner.
As for people sleeping, once again people aren't going to change their vote over one issue but that doesn't mean they didn't carry some resentment. If the resentment keeps being fed then it could well indeed become an election issue.
If parents are mad at teachers at the same time McGuinty and Hudak were running for election, what might happen if McGuinty had have pulled a "Reagan firing the airport controllers" move? This could likely be done, since there are a LOT of new teachers needing jobs!
I'm not saying the situation is that bad right now, but what if it escalates and continues? I'm just pointing out that there could be a day when a politician might think such action would help his electoral cause more than hurt it.
I know myself I don't like the way teachers have been negotiating and the union way they seem to see their jobs. I know I am perhaps a bit off the wall but am I likely the ONLY parent who feels this way?
-
The process should be fair, the results not necessarily so.
If we do, and its my assertion we do not, can you provide some link to show same?
If they have been criminally rehabbed for a felony, + 5 yrs has passed, then they can submit an application for Criminal Rehabilitation , then after that (if green lighted) they can re-apply to be an immigrant.
A very diffulcult process from what I understand.
Here we go! From a simple google:
Let's start with an official warning when visiting Jamaica from the Gov't of Canada:
http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/report_rapport-eng.asp?id=138000
"amaica Exercise normal security precautions Exercise high degree of caution Avoid non-essential travel Avoid all travel
There is a relatively high level of violent crime and murder mainly related to gang activity and reprisal killings in inner-city communities. In the Kingston and St. Andrew Corporate Area, the communities of Waterhouse, Drewsland, Grants Pen, Cassava Piece, Rockfort and Downtown/Central Kingston have seen significant upsurges of violence. Police may impose curfews with short notice in areas where flare-ups have occurred. Travellers are advised to listen to media reports and follow the advice of local police and military officers.
http://www.caribbean360.com/index.php/news/19004.html#axzz2AhfqYazW
"TORONTO, Canada, Wednesday May 5, 2010 – Members of a Jamaican organised criminal gang accused of providing guns and drugs that fuel gang wars in Toronto, Canada were among 78 people held by police on Monday after an eight-month investigation.
The men from the Shower Posse, which originated in the western Kingston community of Tivoli Gardens, and members of other gangs were held in a sweep that involved 1,000 officers who conducted 105 simultaneous searches in the Greater Toronto Area and as far as Ottawa."
Here's another on the Shower Posse, illustrating their size and extent"
"
A ruthless Jamaican criminal organization with links to the country’s ruling political party is the same group Toronto police allege supplies weapons to and controls the street gangs targeted in Tuesday’s province-wide, early-morning raids.
The Shower Posse, which the U.S. government says holds influence with Jamaica’s governing Labour Party and is responsible for more than 1,400 drug-related killings, is an international organized crime syndicate that police say funnelled drugs through the Caribbean to GTA street-level gangs such as the Falstaff Crips and the Five Point Generals.On Tuesday morning, more than 1,000 police officers from forces across Ontario executed 105 search warrants in the GTA and Ottawa, resulting in 79 arrests and the seizure of $30,000 in cash, $10,500 in casino cheques, 19 firearms, diamonds, cocaine, body armour, vehicles and more than 10,000 ecstasy pills."
Obviously, the problem is real. We can quibble about the whys and wherefors but not the fact that it exists.
-
This is ancient history, Peeves. Despite the election of Rob Ford as Mayor, Toronto is still dominated by leftwing politicians and has been for a long time. They are rabidly against the idea of incinerating garbage. They don't want to hear about modern, clean technologies such as plasma furnaces. They don't want to hear about generating electricity.
If you burn it it's BAD! Period and end of story.
Back during Bob Rae's term in Ontario his NDP energy minister was a lady named Ruth Grier Incineration was being talked about at that time and an American company that operated what appeared to be model 'green' incineration/generation stations in some American states offered not only to do a presentation but to fly Ruth and her own pick of 'techie' minions to one of their sites and let her see for herself how clean and pure was the operation.
Ruth flat out refused to even consider going!
Then later we had the Kirkland Lake fiasco. Kirkland Lake has a great big hole in the ground from some abandoned mine or quarry. They proposed lining it with something to prevent any leakage into the ground water and let Toronto ship its trash in by rail and use it to fill the hole. They figured they could take decades worth and could certainly use the money Toronto would be expected to pay them.
The deal was almost signed when the lefty cohort on Toronto's Council got the deal squashed. There was a lot of BS thrown around. They claimed that the people of Kirkland Lake were rabidly against the idea of taking the garbage. Of course, some TV station made a cip of a 'walk-around' on KL's streets, asking people how they felt about the issue. Everyone was enthusiastically onside and the TV crew reported they couldn't find a single naysayer!
Another councillor said it was a bad idea because it only postponed coming up with a 'good' solution. He said that Toronto should not export its problem anyway and should buckle down and come up with a nice, 'green' solution.
They did. They made a deal with Michigan! Plus, several hundred trucks of garbage started travelling the 401 to cross the border at Windsor everyday.
So that's why, Peeves. Unless and until the leftie power on Toronto council gets broken, nothing will change.
-
Odds are it won't be nearly as bad as the radio and TV weatherpeople are making it out to be. They all seem to be desperately trying to become real news anchors and so always exaggerate.
That being said, don't be surprised to hear Adam Vaughn, one of Toronto's councillors, start whining to call in the army!
-
The Supreme Court (Judicial branch of government) applies Constitutional rights to law made by Parliament (Legislative branch of government).
The ruling is what it is.
No argument there. It's just when you said "However, I do know that the job of the Supreme Court is to consider the balance of impacts of their decisions." I took that to mean you were saying the job of the Supreme Court was to consider the balance of impacts of their decisions.
-
Calling parents outside of school time is not in the contract.
Meeting parents outside of school time is not in the contract.
That's precisely why we have this conflict, MCC! Not all that long ago teachers were thought of as professionals. It was thought to be a salary job. Nobody gave a thought to teachers having summer holidays. No one cared that some days were less than 8 hours. Parents saw teachers having evening meetings. There was a time when high schools held dances in the evenings. My school made a fortune from featuring bands like Rush before they made it big! There was no problem finding teachers to be chaperones. Or football coaches, for that matter.
Salary means flexibility and give and take with hours worked. We rarely heard any criticism of a teacher's job at all, in that respect.
Nobody expected that everything had to be spelled out in a union labour contract. Teachers negotiated through what was known as the Ontario Teachers' Association, not a version of the UAW.
Somehow over the past decade or two that has all changed. Teachers appear to have become militant union members, no different than posties or auto workers.
It is a dramatic shift! A lot of parents have not yet woken up to the change. We tend to think schools are the same as when we attended and it takes a while for changes to correct our memories.
So the big question is, when enough parents have woken up and become aware of the change, how will they feel about it? How will they react?
It's beginning to look like support for teachers drops more and more as the public sees what's going on.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the vast majority of parents in Ontario LOVE militant labour unions! Maybe they will cheerfully accept what's happening to their kids and blame it all on the government, those capitalist lackeys of the bourgoisie!
Although since the government is also elected by those same parents, I would think it not likely. If or until Ontario has an old style union focused NDP government with a strong majority of the popular vote.
Perhaps not even then, considering that there is a big difference between Ford going on strike and your child's teachers. You can always wait to buy a new Ford, or look at a Chevrolet instead. If your child loses a year or even receives poor education from work to rule actions parents feel it much more directly.
I think the teachers may not realize the negative consequences of their actions. It is VERY possible that the time may come when pushing back against teachers might be a positive thing for a politician in Ontario.
-
I find your post full of the kind of vague assertions, half truths, generalizations, overreactions and stereotypes upon which ethnic prejudice feeds.
It's your right to speak as you please, but I would suggest not a firm enough foundation for immigration policy.
You do realize that all your links established is that there are many law-abiding Roma in Canada. Quelle surprise!
Who ever said there aren't? No one is concerned about those that are law abiding. The problem is that there is a sizable percentage in Europe who are not!
You seem so worried about dissing the good people in any group that you would totally ignore any bad!
Here's some other links:
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=581455
"The new right party Jobbik launched a campaign www.ciganybunozes.com in 2006 to bring attention to Roma crime in Hungary. Although it was immediately labeled as a 'nazi, discriminating campaign' against the 'innocent' Roma population, it achieved its aim in bringing about a more open public discussion about the Roma ethnic group and their high rate of crime."
" News channels (see video under Related Items below, courtesy of HirTV) and newspapers are now realising that "indeed it's a very sensitive issue and they need to talk about it", according to Jobbik.
Recent, cruel and shocking crimes committed by Romas have brought Hungary to the edge of a civil war - some political analysts have warned."
http://fullcomment.n...em-became-ours/
"Last month, police in Durham, Ont., east of Toronto, reported busting up a massive criminal ring, allegedly run by Romanian Roma, that among other things was practising European-style distraction thefts on the streets of Oshawa, Ont."
http://www.france24....ortation-racism
"France’s Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux said on Monday that over the past 18 months crime committed by Roma people has increased by 259 percent in Paris alone.
The minister’s statement came after a flood of criticism and mounting party division over President Nicolas Sarkozy’s summer campaign to dismantle illegal gypsy camps and to deport Roma on a large scale to Eastern Europe. The controversy has been fuelled by declarations by the president that link Roma, Gypsies and travelling people to crime.
FRANCE 24
France under fire for Roma policy.
“Today, in Paris, the reality is that almost one in five perpetrators of a theft is a Romanian,” Hortefeux said on Wednesday at the joint press conference with immigration minister Eric Besson. “This is not about stigmatising this or that population, but we cannot close our eyes to reality.”
Now all that being said, the situation is not nearly so simple as do the Roma commit a lot of crime or not. You are actually right to worry about racism, Jaycee!
If you google a bit deeper you will find that many Roma have integrated into their communities and are law-abiding citizens. Yet many other citizens literally blame them for everything they can think of that's wrong, with no attempt whatseover to differentiate between who is a criminal and who is not among the Roma. Many Roma have been brutally poor for generations. Much crime may have been simply a survival tactic.
So are many a crime problem? It would appear so. We're not talking about evidence of UFOs here.
Is there much discrimination in Europe towards the Roma? That also would appear to be absolutely true!
So please don't twist my words. Just because I talk about Canada importing problems with Roma immigrants does NOT mean I am saying that all Roma are bad! That type of thinking is just stupid. First, you would have to know ALL Roma to make that judgement! That is obviously impossible.
However, it DOES make sense that if there ARE such problems with european Roma wanting to come to Canada we should practice much better screening than we have been doing. If we do not want to spend the money then it is a reasonable alternative to not accept any immigrants from countries like Hungary at all. There is an entire world out there of potential immigrants. We should accept the best and the easiest to identify, If one country has a high percentage of problems at this time then why are we obliged to bother with them? We should look somewhere else.
In a decade or two things can change dramatically. You might claim racism because we choose to ignore one country today because of the race of its population but in a surprisingly short time problems can disappear while emerging somewhere completely different from a country of a different race.
We are rapidly evolving into a Star Trek world. We still have cultural clashes with some barbaric countries.but developed countries are becoming remarkably similar. They dance to western dance music in China nightclubs today. There are even rappers among the Inuit!
Claiming race is just a dramatic diversion. In the modern world, race is irrelevant.
It would do you well to accept that. You can find a black neighbour a pain in the ass without it having been all about his skin colour, you know. Maybe he IS a pain in the ass!
To pretend otherwise is frankly, patronizing.
-
Well, I believe I made the point that Canada is under no obligation to "prove they are all criminals". Immigration Canada is responsible to Canadians, not to all the people in the world who wish to emigrate to Canada. Canadians only are the ones who pay taxes to receive our government services. To suggest foreigners are entitled would be instant bankruptcy. We can't afford to cater to the entire world.
No one is suggesting that the Roma are being singled out as a group simply because of prejudice. Their culture has a long historical record of being very clannish. In Roma culture, only Roma culture matters. Mainstream culture is to be fleeced! They have managed to stay mostly a nomadic people. Of course some have left that culture, just as some Amish leave and enter the mainstream. Or North American natives, as well. Still, it is an established fact that the main Roma culture carries a great deal of fraud and crime with it. Just ask the police of virtually EVERY European country. Canada has not had much experience simply because of the Atlantic Ocean. Now that is changing.
It will be interesting to see how long the Roma culture will survive as times go on. Or how it will adapt.
Meanwhile, I agree with you that every Roma is not a criminal. The idea is absurd but it is still a fact that certain cultures and certain geographical areas have higher percentages of people that would be a problem if we allowed them into Canada. I say that if we can't do a good job screening all the potential immigrants we should target what resources we have at those groups more likely to have a problem and screen them far better. Obviously, a university professor of Roma descent with no criminal record is not likely to be a problem. Someone with a criminal history IS!
Moving along, there was less for you for which to respond in my post because for a lot of it we were in agreement!
As for the Jamaican issue and the Hells Angels scandal, forgive me. Sometimes I forget that some posters may be younger or perhaps are not as plugged in to the mainstream media. Not that long ago both those issues were as strong in the MSM as McGuinty's resignation is today.
Let's not bother with my finding cites for you. It won't make a difference to the main point anyway. Instead, perhaps you can confirm something for me. Do you miss such references because they happened before you were of age to notice or do you get your news from different sources than that of my generation?
I'm thinking it might be worth a thread in itself to examine that point. My daughters are 16 and 21. Both consider themselves well-informed yet never read a newspaper or watch the evening news. To me, it would seem that most of their input comes from John Stewart but they tell me they keep informed from what is online.
On certain issues they DO seem well informed but the gaps intrigue me! I suspect that one such as yourself could contribute a useful perspective to such a thread. As I said, on some issues you seem to have a lot of background yet on others there are large gaps. How we receive news might be a BIG factor!
It might be interesting to chew on "why". After all, we older folks will be gone shortly. For better or worse,the succeeding generations will have to cope.
-
From above:
... whatever goods they produce ... are tax free
I can't answer all of the many and voluminous issues you speculate about.
However, I do know that the job of the Supreme Court is to consider the balance of impacts of their decisions.
As for the tax money being lost due to native cig sales ... that's a hypocritical concern imo:
- Cigs are hidden from view - you can't browse what you want to buy.
- Taxes are through the roof!
- Packages are very offensive
- Try finding a place to sit down, be warm, free of harassment, and smoke in peace!
Point being ... the government makes smoking as difficult as possible and brags about reducing smoking (and sales).
They are hypocrites if they now complain about lost sales taxes.
Reduce the taxes ... sales will increase.
And btw ... natives have always had 'commercial level businesses'.
Thus the Supreme Court ruling.
Read the article WB.
I did read the article. What was the level of commercial native business in 1712, not 2012?
I'm glad you agree with me that governments have made a mess of the situation. What else is new?
I do have another question, though. You said "it's the job of the Supreme Court is to consider the balance of impacts of their decisions."
Do you have anything to support this? I thought the job of the Supreme Court is to deal with law and it is the job of the politicians to MAKE that law! As I said in my post, something can be perfectly legal yet not work. Native businesses competing with mainstream business with the advantage of being tax-free may be legal. I don't see that it is the job of the legal system to care if it puts mainstream business into bankruptcy.
In short, courts are not the government. If you are saying differently, then I would be interested in how you support that claim.
-
Thanks for the apology for the "pedophilia" nonsequiter. Yes I did veer a bit toward the personal with the "pulling wings off butterflies" comment, and I apologize for that.
Back to thread topic now?
For me, the issue raised by this discussion is ... should ALL Roma people be denied immigration because of the criminal actions of some?
Those forced into crime to pay their human traffickers are victims themselves, afterall.
I'm just not comfortable with the implication that ALL Roma should be denied entry.
A good question! My first response was "Who says we have to be fair?"
After all, immigration is something we control for the good of Canada, not for the good of every foreign applicant. However, we do wish to maintain a reputation for fairness on the international stage. Otherwise we might look like some of those "other" countires!
That being said, the problem would be moot if Immigration Canada did a better job of checking applicants from ANY country! Unfortunately for us, they just don't!
We let criminals from Jamaica and other countries in with such problems all the time. It was cited in the mainstream media many times that the reason the Roma are treated so badly in Europe is that there are indeed so many that commit criminal acts! The bias against them is substantiated, not just unfounded like the bigotry of the American South. Apparently, Hungary has been encouraging Roma emigration to Canada as a way of putting the problem onto someone else. Hungary is not Ethiopia. Most people, including honest folks of Roma persuasion don't want to emigrate!
It is all very well to say it is better to let in 100 criminal immigrants rather than discriminate against 1 honest one but what about when that means a HUGE amount of crime against hard-working Canadians? Can we afford it? How would you feel if you yourself were a victim because of a flawed policy?
You don't seem to realize how poorly the system works to screen applicants. Our embassies have to hire locals for much of the work. They work with local agencies that sometimes are corrupt. We had a scandal come to light when it was found that many Hells Angels with criminal records wear working handling baggage at the Toronto Airport. One of their girl friends was in a highly placed clerical position and was able to make it happen.
If that happens here, what about a country like Somalia or Bangaladesh?
It costs MONEY to properly screen potential immigrants! If our governments make our soldiers fly SeaKings and old aircraft why would anyone assume the budget for embassies to screen immigrants for criminal records is large enough to do a proper job?
It is doubtful if our embassy in Hungary has the resources to properly screen those Roma seeking to come to Canada, a country where the pickings are much better and the environment more poltiically correct, which helps protect them.
Right now it can take over 10 years to deport a PROVEN criminal immigrant from Canada, if not longer! Why would the system that is supposed to check people coming INTO Canada be much better?
Governments have let this problem fester because they simply haven't cared. Immigration to them is a means of getting votes. People are likely grateful to have family members follow them to Canada. If many criminals follow them in, so what? It will not be obviously the fault of any politiician. If anyone tries to make an accusation they will only be written off as some bigot anyway!
Better get used to it, Jaycee! The problem is now so big we likely can't afford to fix it anymore. If we started now and properly increased budgets and tightened up the system we may be able to improve things for the future but there doesn't seem to be anything we can do about criminal immigrants here now, other than put up with the problem for a few decades until they start dying off.
-
...
Ottawa lost its appeal, and with the Supreme Court rejecting the federal request for a hearing, the door is now open to First Nations commercial ventures that also seek tax exemptions, the fishers' lawyer said. "If a First Nation has a corporation headquartered on a reserve and they bank on a reserve, work on or through a reserve or in proximity to a reserve, whatever goods they produce... are tax-free," Winnipeg lawyer Norm Boudreau said. "The tax court can no longer view a First Nation enterprise in the commercial stream as a way to tax that First Nation," Boudreau said.
I think that clarifies.
Well, this is something, at least! Finally!
It doesn't clarify everything, however. We have always known that native business are exempt from BEING taxed! That would include corporate tax, tax on machinery and supplies for their own use, and so on.
I would imagine that native employees of a business on a reserve would be exempt from income taxes and such.
What about CPP and EI premiums, I wonder?
Anyhow, there is a BIG difference between taxes levied on a business and SALES taxes on its product or service to non-natives! Smokes to non-natives would fall into that category.
The ONLY factor in your cite that to me supports your premise is the part about the fishing. If I understand it correctly, the Supreme Court is saying that the government cannot levy tax on fish caught by native fishing businesses when sold.
It doesn't say to a wholesaler in volume or retail "onesy-twosy" to retail customers a few pounds of fish at a time. The idea that if something isn't spelled out as ok in law means that it is indeed ok has been gone ever since Trudeau changed things. To paraphrase a popular model used at the time of his changes, the old British style system was one where a citizen had the right to do whatever unless there was a specific law against it. In effect, you can walk on any grass unless there is a "Keep off the grass" sign.
After Trudeau we have more of the French model. It's "Keep off ALL grass!" unless there is a sign saying it's ok to walk on it.
So perhaps the Supreme Court decision means something different when applied at th retail level. I don't know but I am sure that lawyers might have a field day and so the idea is yet to be tested.
At least you have given us something to chew on. That wasn't so hard, was it?
The issue is still not closed. The Supreme Court are lawyers after all. Their mandate is to find if something is legal or not by the present law of the land. Whether or not that means it would bankrupt the country or cause severe disruption is not within their purvue.
It is not only possible but likely that the fishing decision is going to cause a lot of problems. First, it could well put every non-native fisherman out of business. There are a number of them! It is guaranteed they will not sit by quietly and watch their kids starve. Poltiicians will have to become involved.
There is also the fact that native fishermen consider themselves exempt from any limits designed to prevent collapse of stocks or extinction of a fish species. They have been quite vocal about how conservation laws do NOT apply to natives! That may well be true but Nature doesn't care. If overfishing drives fish to extinction it doesn't matter who did the overfishing.
What happens then? That could even have international ramifications. Canada is not the only country fishing our coasts. Would Canada have to defend its natives in international court or would Japan or Russia be able to sue natives directly? If natives are indeed sovereign then one would expect they would have to fight their own battles.
Back to the cigarette issue! Legal or not, non-native variety stores are being driven out of business from loss of tobacco sales. The amount of tax money lost is staggering! Can governments AFFORD to give up that revenue? And how long before ordinary Canadians realize that every dollar of lost taxes due to native cigarette sales means another dollar added to THEIR tax burden? Will they just smile and tell their politicians "Fuggedaboutit!"?
Back when these Treaties were first written the world was a much simpler place. No one imagined that someday natives would become commercial level businessmen. No one understood the future problems and conflicts. Even if some did they no doubt assumed that politicians would work them out. Of course, our politicians today do nothing of the kind. They have a conflict between what is good for the country and how things APPEAR! Native rights are now considered politically correct by much of the population. Understandably so, since natives were often screwed by such politicians!
Still, as I said, just because it's legal can have nothing to do with whether or not a thing works.
Sooner or later these problems will have to be addressed. Every day of delay means they just grow bigger and bigger. Meanwhile, non-native unemployment keeps rising and business profits and therefore the taxes they contribute to the government for services like EI and medicare keep dropping. It's easy for a non-native to support native rights when he's flush! When he and his familiy get hungry their values can change very quickly, Supreme Court or no Supreme Court.
So resentment against things like native fishing companies and taxes lost to contraband cigarettes will only grow. That's a pity, in my opinion. I don't believe that governments made a wise decision to boost sin taxes so high in the first place. Back in the 90's when this situation happened for the first time governments chose to drop their taxes by over half and the contraband industry collapsed overnight. For some reason they have not chosen to do the same today. Perhaps some politicians have been bought - who knows? Whatever, governments should never have allowed themselves to be so dependent on sin taxes to the point where losing tobacco taxes to natives can hurt so badly.
The whole situation is a mess. I suspect things will get much worse before they get better.
-
I'm not going looking for a law that doesn't exist.
And I will not spend my time proving YOUR point!
You made the assertation, one that contradicts what has been common knowledge since the Indian Act was written. If you want someone to believe you, you have to make a better effort.
Otherwise, your point will simply be ignored.
-
Show me where it says Native shops on reserves have to collect and remit taxes for nonnatives?
Don't pull that! YOU made the claim so its up to you to defend it!
First rule of debate! The other guy doesn't have to prove your point for you!
Either prove it or retract it! Don't weasel!
-
McGuinty is pretty irrelevant now.
Look at the reality, Bill:
Mom and Pop native tobacco shops on reserve are not staffed to do the accounting involved in collecting provincial taxes, and have no interest in or obligation to do so.
Non natives who buy smokes there have a tax obligation.
For comparison ... Canadians buying goods in the US have tax and duty obligations, but US vendors have no obligation to collect those.
The onus is on the buyer.
Variety stores off reserve have to collect the taxes! And how far would they get if they didn't bother, got busted and told the judge "are not staffed to do the accounting involved in collecting provincial taxes, and have no interest in or obligation to do so."?
Again you say they "have no interest in or obligation to do so". This is contrary to anything and everything I have ever heard about the legalities of the situation and the Indian Act.
You made the claim. I ask again, have you a cite or something to back that up? Where does it say natives can sell to non-natives and ignore taxes?
Your comparison with the USA is a non sequitur. The USA is a sovereign, foreign nation. Native reserves are NOT! Sovereign nations look after themselves. They do not take welfare. Or will you claim that it is somehow "tribute"? What country provides health care for a foreign country?
I ask again, please stop dodging and weaseling like a lawyer. Please cite or give us SOMETHING to show that legally natives can sell to non-natives without collecting taxes!
-
You threatened:
I pointed out that 'we' have lawful obligations to fund First Nations that can't just be ignored without facing the courts.
Ah, mea culpa. I misunderstood you. You did not mean court action over natives selling to non-natives without collecting taxes. You meant Canada having legal obligations to send cheques.
It still leaves the question, however, as to why are natives somehow above the law by selling smokes to non-natives without collecting taxes. Why are they not facing the courts? You seemed to imply they were exempt. My position is that McGuinty's government was gutless and sacrificed the rule of Law for political expediency.
-
I will admit, it's not the first time I have been called that.
And I will admit Michael, that while I have some issues with what has come from your head I DO believe you mean well in your heart!
Sans peur et sans reproche?
BTW, have you noticed how some of the worst offenders with bad manners are strangely silent in this portion of the thread?
-
It states that it's ok to criticize a comment. I don't feel that calling someone a liberal or conservative is an insult, and if somebody makes blatantly racist statements, maybe they're proud of their position - who knows ?
Generally, I would say calling someone is a racist is playing the man as you say. But calling someone's statements racist seems to make certain types flip out ... or even using an analogy to racism (not at all the same thing) can make people gasp for air, it seems. I'm not offended or shocked by racists, nor do I moralize about them any more. I don't share their values, and that's all I can say about it.
Your comments are welcome, as usual.
Here we see one strong factor that has upset me, Michael. You have a very politically correct opinion on what makes a statement racist!
It seems that if someone makes a comment based on statistics or evidence that a culture has negative aspects, such as some Islamist cultures in particular, you immediately take that to be a racial slam on the people who live in those cultures.
This view of yours has no valid logic behind it at all! Many times I have read your responses to such posts and I have come to believe that any negative comment towards anyone who likely is not caucasian is enough for you to brand them racist! Or at the very least, you dismiss their point as being some veiled attempt at establishing some racist position. You take a comment about a trait practiced by some or many in a culture to be an attack on ALL of them, even those who may have been born and nurtured elsewhere!
This has upset me because I see it as such an enormous stretch I have a hard time believing you are sincere.
Meanwhile certain members who I will not name in this thread but would be happy to cite for you privately have been blatantly personally insulting for months. We see no sign of any corrective action. Instead, you are likely to censure a victim for retaliating or nit-pick about thread drift.
I understand your job is not always an easy one. I am just suggesting you work a bit harder to keep your own prejudices from influencing your judgement.
For the record, I do not believe I have EVER made any statement on MLW that was racist! I think your own bias may have made you stretch logic to absurdity and take it that way.
When someone even implies that I am a racist or even that I hold views that I am too stupid to understand are racist I take that as a deep and personal insult!
As I said, I understand you have a difficult job but I think you may be trivializing insulting behavior from some posters because they share many of your own politically correct views. You do not always see them as the harsh insults that they are indeed. Meanwhile, your same biases can make you hyper-sensitive to comments posted that disagree with your own world view.
I believe that freedom lies in people posting any cockamamie thing they want, IN A CIVIL AND COURTEOUS MANNER! A little less worry about a view being politically correct and a bit more about someone being out and out RUDE might be all we need.
We need the judgement of Solomon, not Ned Flanders!
Ontario Teachers Tighten the Screws
in Provincial Politics in Canada
Posted
We are talking about corrupt politicians, Michael. What grounds did McGuinty have to do what he did so far?
We're talking politics here. He would simply claim their work to rule is a violation of the contract. Even if he loses in court, what would he care if it kept him in power?
The law is perverted all the time. It sometimes doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. You can win with better lawyers. Or lose in court but win at your actual goal of delay. Or be absolutely in the wrong but win because your opponent is too poor to afford as good a lawyer as you have!
That's unfortunately how the real world often works.