tango

Constitution Sec 35 "(1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. Note - This includes all pre-existing aboriginal rights, as well as all of the treaties, etc. Sec "25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including ( a ) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation* of October 7, 1763; and ( b ) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. (92) http://www.bloorstreet.com/200block/rp1763.htm#2 * Royal Proclamation 1763 The Indian Provisons And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds etc Also, we have Aboriginal Justice Circles as alternatives to courts, recognition of traditional Indigenous forms of justice that are based on reconciliation, not punishment. These are a few examples. In fact, I recently heard a lawyer argue in court that a young man defending land from development was "following his own law, as he is required to do". The court recognized that too. Quebec: Under the British Empire Following France's abandonment of Quebec in favour of Guadaloupe in the Treaty of Paris (1763), Quebec came under British law. However, the seigneurial system of land tenure continued to be applied uniformly throughout the province. In 1774 the British Parliament passed the Quebec Act which restored the former French civil law for private relationships while maintaining the common law for public administration, including the prosecution of crimes. As a result, the colony, later known as the Dominion of Canada, is today one of only a handful of "bijural" countries in the world where two legal systems co-exist. leafless is on a crusade to 'Brit-ify' Canada, but that is simply not what Canada is about. leafless needs to learn more about his own country before making such absurd claims.

The PM cannot do it himself. It requires full debate in parliament and approval from the Senate. (Look it up.) Not going to happen. And btw ... the original 'inherited' languages of Canada are Aboriginal languages. Then came the French language. Then came English. Canada's laws reflect the legal rights, legal traditions and languages of all three founding peoples. Canada's roots (and laws) are not just 'British', but Aboriginal, French and British. I suggest you get to know your country better.

I rest my case.

Last year, there were more than 1.7 million people drawing welfare in Canada, over 5 percent of the population. Most of them, reports Welfare Incomes 2004, lived on incomes well below what the government itself calls the poverty line, despite Canada being one of the richest countries on the globe. ... That the real (after-inflation) value of welfare benefits has been allowed to fall sharply, ever further below the poverty line, cannot be viewed merely as an oversight on the part of government. It is a deliberate social policy aimed at using extreme poverty to force the poor into low-wage, dead-end jobs and to undermine the wages and social standing of the working class in general. ... Perhaps the most revealing and damning statistics in Welfare Incomes 2004 are those that show welfare rates relative to the poverty line as determined by the federal government. Nowhere in Canada does welfare currently provide for more than half of the income necessary to rise above the poverty line. Single people deemed employable have suffered the greatest drop in their welfare incomes, as a result of benefit cuts of up to 25 percent imposed by seven of the ten provinces. Another alarming statistic is the drop in welfare income for people with disabilities. In eight provinces, the incomes of welfare recipients with disabilities have plummeted over 20 percent from their peak more than a decade ago. The 'business class' began attacking the poor when their fortunes fell in the 90's (due to their own shortsightedness, I will add). The attacks on the poor have not stopped since, and have resulted in benefits that are not sufficient to support people. You cannot work, or learn in school, with only kraft dinner for fuel. -edit to add- Just found this estimate: Penalties for welfare fraud have always existed and could be prosecuted as an offence under criminal law. There is no evidence to suggest that workfare programs deter fraud or abuse. Furthermore, it is estimated that welfare fraud is about 2 to 3% of the caseload. Not the 20% bandied about here, which includes case worker errors (apparently 17-18%) http://www.cdhalton.ca/publications/sara/section_2.htm On topic ... Gun Crime ... it isn't about the adults. It's about the kids growing up on welfare. Crime prevention requires that they be fed, rested, sheltered, clothed and able to learn in school to prevent crime in the future. Current welfare/workfare rates do not provide adequate care for kids. If you grow up angry at the system for shortchanging you on food, poorly developed due to malnourishment, poorly educated due to hunger interfering with learning ... crime may follow.

You linked to a study that said there was "error or abuse" in 20% of cases. However, "errors" are made by the caseworkers and do not indicate abuse. They did not separate these two causes. It does not prove what you claim. You still have not provided information about what the rate of "abuse" is. Well, I suggest you try it then. It is unbelievably difficult to get disability, especially for people with 'hidden' disabilities that are not obvious to others. I have a friend with ms. She takes very good care of herself (eating, sleeping, etc) so that she is able to go out and socialize once a week. However, some of those she socializes with think she is ripping off disability because "she seems fine". Those of you who stand in judgment of people with hidden disabilities should stand in their shoes sometime. And those of you who know 'welfare cheats' should hire them!

Well ... for starters ... some of those "miserable, rag-headed, heathen bastards" (sic) are Canadian/American citizens who are offended by such gross and insulting generalizations. And the slur is based on religion - see - "heathen" is a slur against nonChristian religions. ... Anybody else want to jump in here? ... betsy?

HEAR!HEAR! Well said! ... and from my post above ... Isn't it well known that Libs and Cons are two sides of the same corporate 'coin'? I mean, what's the point of even choosing between two versions of the status quo? Get crazy ... choose between NDP (socialist-green) or Green (capitalist-green)!!!

Isn't it well known that Libs and Cons are two sides of the same corporate 'coin'? I mean, what's the point of even choosing between two versions of the status quo? Get crazy ... choose between NDP (socialist-green) or Green (capitalist-green)!!!

hear!hear! Pot smokers aren't causing problems for cops, not like drinkers, but pot is a handy 'tool' for police to bust someone they can't get for what they really did. But why should the rest of us pay for those unrelated crimes? hunh? Crime stats are inflated with pot 'busts' and if that criminalization was removed, cops are afraid of losing people ... jobs. -sigh- logic falters ... On topic of ... dangerous drugs ... 'Harm reduction' applies to the addicted individual, yes, but primarily protects society. It is in our interests that dirty needles are not being passed around in the streets, left around in the playgrounds, apartment lobbies, or vacated apts, homes, etc etc etc etc ... the things some communities already deal with, and the diseases that follow, people doing drugs in public on the streets, etc etc It is a health issue for the people who live in those neighbourhoods, to clean up their neighbourhoods of needles, for one thing. Walk in their shoes. I don't believe Harper understands this part of the equation - the neighbourhood perspective. This is not his business to interfere with, on an ideological basis, if he has not walked in the shoes of the people who live in those neighbourhoods, imo. Besides, it is only part of an entire strategy. There is no need to dictate communities' choices of strategies, and no need to target the most afflicted communities with divisive tactics for political gain.

I agree with you there, and I especially like "drunken pill head from Rosedale" (But I entirely disapprove of your previous racist post.)

Subsidized housing is only a dream for most - 5+ year waiting lists, and if you are single, you'll be bumped by families. Most never make it, and are trying to live on $560 welfare a month in the rental market. They can't even afford rent, let alone food! There is no money 'left over'. There are at least two weeks of the month with no food except food banks (not very nutritious). Like I said, people complaining about welfare recipients don't know them or the system very well, which you just proved. ... entertainment ? travel? ... hahahahahaha That's ridiculous. btw ... I read a report about welfare cheaters. The most common type was a family with a business (often a restaurant) who wrote off enough to reduce their income so they could get welfare (while also feeding their family at work, and writing that off too). I thought this was interesting since I believe the complaints about people on welfare usually come from the private sector, but it turns out they are the culprits. And ... how many are there who abuse the system? Do you know? Are you just assuming there are lots, or can you provide some evidence beyond a personal observation? By a 'decent living', I mean food, shelter, clothing. Right now, welfare for singles does not provide enough to live on - rent, food, $560/mo in a small city? I don't think so. People working at minimum/low wage need more too. Oleg, I won't respond to your post, except to identify it as a racist rant. From there, it is up to the mods.

Electric cars seem most appropriate in cities, it's true, so hybrids make a lot of sense and are the choice of thoise able to make those choices. Dependence on the car is created by the 'suburban' consumption lifestyle. If gas is too expensive for people to afford that kind of wasteful living, then people will change their way of living. simple. It is a lifestyle choice.

You are both referring to technologies that need improvements, and are improving at rapid rates, rates that will increase with increases in fuel costs. Who is talking about "replacing" fossil fuels entirely? - not me - Just talking about developing other sources to supplement. I see no need for an 'either-or' discussion, but we could reduce our dependence on fossil fuels considerably.

Yes I do. It is already here, and it will take cost increases in fossil fuels to make it seem attractive, to make private companies get their act together and get these things marketed properly, without interference from the 'fossils'. lol For example, in-floor heating is far superior, cleaner than the forced air type, and easily powered by solar shingles.

Excellent point. Those receiving benefits, welfare or otherwise, have no incentive to supplement their income legitimately because anything they make is clawed back. I think we need a new concept of 'supportive' living that encourages people to contribute what they can, like your artist friend, without interfering with their basic living costs.

I find it interesting that the study does not distinguish between 'economic' immigrants and refugees. It appears to me that the difference 'washes out' and all immigrant groups do better than 'homegrown' Canadians. Interesting.

There are many many people who had minimal education/skills for employment to begin with, and simply have no skills that are marketable by mid-life. They may have intellectual limitations, learning disabilities, lack of education (illiteracy), some health issues (eg diabetes, bad back, mental health issues, etc) that limit them further, but do not qualify them for disability. There is a whole lot of grey area between 'permanently disabled' and 'able bodied' and many welfare recipients fall within that grey area and cannot sustain full time employment. Again, I must say that those who complain about 'people on welfare' don't seem to know much about them at all. Let me put it this way: If you are an employer, would you hire the street people of Toronto? (ie, the chronically unemployed) Most of the people I have met who are chronically on/off welfare are simply not employable on the sustained, full time basis required to earn a decent living. And many of them also have to engage in petty crime to make ends meet. (Just like Oliver Twist).

That would be a significant improvement! Can you tell me how a single unemployable adult can shelter, feed and clothe themselves on $560/mo in Ontario without resorting to petty crime? People who complain about 'welfare' should learn more about what the rates are, how people cope who are on welfare. In fact, 80% of those receiving benefits, mostly younger ones, do so for less than two years, and use it as a 'hand up'. However, a laid-off 55 year old with no marketable skills and some health issues (not enough to get disability) has little other recourse but the extreme poverty provided by welfare, and petty crime.

I think Candidate McHale, were he here, would not see this thread as 'helpful' to his cause. It seems to me that the tone here is more 'playground taunts' than grown up politics. Those who defend him don't seem to be introducing a more adult tone ... don't seem to comprehend that this isn't a playground squabble or a protest/anti-protest rally, but real national politics. Several candidates have already bitten the dust for inappropriate comments, signifying the difference between discussion board controversy and real politics.

Hmm ... are you Batman? Gonna swoop in and clean up the criminals in Caledonia? But then who's left to vote for McHale?

'Party loyalty' is just a con game. Vote swapping is entirely legal. If Harper makes any effort to take the site down, there will be a huge outcry. The site on facebook went from 800 to 3800 members in a few days! I see it as a way for us to take back control of our 'democracy' which has been deformed and mutilated by party politics. If parties can no longer just target ridings to win an election, maybe they will instead give some thought to policies of substance, issues of importance to the people. Remember: We just had an election in Ontario on an issue of importance to no one, a complete red herring to avoid any issues of real importance to the people.

hmm ... and this is a problem ... why?

It's hardly worth arguing these issues since the court is about to rule anyway. The temporary injunction in Brantford will either be made permanent or it will be lifted permanently. If the law is applied the way the Ontario Court of Appeals has written it, the injunction will be lifted. Frontenac Ventures v Ardoch Algonquins [48] Where a requested injunction is intended to create “a protest-free zone” for contentious private activity that affects asserted aboriginal or treaty rights, the court must be very careful to ensure that, in the context of the dispute before it, the Crown has fully and faithfully discharged its duty to consult with the affected First Nations: see Julia E. Lawn, “The John Doe Injunction in Mass Protest Cases” (1998) 56 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 101. The court must further be satisfied that every effort has been exhausted to obtain a negotiated or legislated solution to the dispute before it. Good faith on both sides is required in this process: Haida Nation, p. 532. It is clear in the ruling that the 'duty to consult' comes before the 'force of law' via injunctions. And thus, that the role of the police is minimal. McHale will be left without an election platform.

She's got cahones! Dion can handle detailed questions about green shift 'out of the blue', and comes across as sincere and knowledgeable. This is not lost on Canadians. Beats flash-and-trash campaigns, imo. Can I do a write in vote in the poll? I vote "Whoever wrote this poll doesn't vote Liberal. big deal" Not to say I do, because I look for intelligence and sincerity, and that's not frequently found in combination in Canadian politics.