Machjo

A good reason to add UDHR 17 to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While it still woulnd't guarantee an absolute right to one's property, it would at least put the onus on the government to prove beyond reason that its confiscation of said property is not arbitrary or that it cannot be reasonably avoided. That I think would be a reasonable limit on the powers of the Crown.

"Article 17. •(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. •(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. " (Bolded, italicized and underlined mine) This clearly indicates all persons; and seeing that the pronoun "his" refers back to the pronoun "one" (also in the singular animate neutral gender), it becomes clear from context that this is referring to all persons.

It can also force you to sell it without having to prove that it could not build the lines elsewhere. Now with Article 17 of the UDHR added in, it could still force you to sell it, but would at least need to prove that its decision to force you to sell it is not arbitrary, making it at least a little more difficult, especially shoudl it be proven that it could simply build elsewhere. Now sure out of goodwill governments may exercise caution in such cases, but it does not change the fact that it's doing so out of kindness and not out of obligation as such. A colleague of mine had her computer confiscated by the police for a year without fair compensation. All she wanted were: 1. That the police lend her a temporary replacement while they kept her computer in custody, and 2. That she be allowed to gain access to the documents downloaded in her computer, even if a police officer must transfer them on her behalf. The police refused to do any of that on the grounds it was too much work and would compromise their investigation even though they could not present any proof of such and that she was left with no access to her computer and many documents for about one year. And she was not even the person being charged. And yes, this was in Canada just last year.

Er, yes. And let's review basic English grammar: Singular inanimate neuter gender: it/its Singular animate masculine gender: he/his Singular animate feminine gender: she/her/hers Singular animate neuter gender: he/his In such formal documents, the singular animate masculine and singular animate neuter are identical. I'd learn that in elementary school, and that in an English-as-a-second-language class at a French-medium school.

Let's talk about history: Canada's first unofficial national anthem: The Royal Anthem God save our gracious King, Long live our noble King, God save the King: Send him victorious, Happy and glorious, Long to reign over us: God save the King. O Lord, our God, arise, Scatter his enemies, And make them fall. Confound their politics, Frustrate their knavish tricks, On Thee our hopes we fix, God save us all. Thy choicest gifts in store, On him be pleased to pour; Long may he reign: May he defend our laws, And ever give us cause To sing with heart and voice God save the King. French Canada also had: Le Canada Il est sous le soleil une terre bénie, Où le ciel a versé ses dons les plus brillants, Où, répondant ses biens la nature agrandie A ses vastes forêts mêle ses lacs géants. Sur ces bords enchantés, notre mère, la France, A laissé de sa gloire un immortel sillon, Précipitant ses flots vers l'océan immense, Le noble Saint-Laurent redit encor son nom. Heureux qui la connaît, plus heureux qui l'habite, Et, ne quittant jamais pour chercher d'autres cieux Les rives du grand fleuve où le bonheur l'invite, Sait vivre et sait mourir où dorment ses aïeux. Later, Lord Baden Powel taught Scouts a modified version under Queen Victoria's reign (the King/Queen change was standard depending on the reigning monarch, but notice the drop of the middle part of the unofficial anthem): God save our gracious Queen, Long live our noble Queen, God save the Queen: Send her victorious, Happy and glorious, Long to reign over us: God save the Queen. Thy choicest gifts in store, On her be pleased to pour; Long may she reign: May she defend our laws, And ever give us cause To sing with heart and voice God save the Queen Then later we had: The Maple Leaf Forever In days of yore, from Britain's shore Wolfe, the dauntless hero, came And planted firm Britania's flag On Canada's fair domain. There may it wave, our boast and pride And join in love together The thistle, shamrock, rose entwine The maple leaf forever. Chorus The maple leaf, our emblem dear The maple leaf forever God save our King and heaven bless The maple leaf forever. At Queenston Heights and Lundy's Lane Our brave fathers side by side For freedom, homes and loved ones dear Firmly stood and nobly died And those dear rights which they maintained We swear to yield them never Our watchword ever more shall be The maple leaf forever. Our fair Dominion now extends From Cape Race to Nootka Sound May peace forever be our lot And plenteous store abound. And may those ties of love be ours Which discord cannot sever And flourish green o'er freedom's home The maple leaf forever. Then French Canada had: Ô Canada! Terre de nos aïeux, Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux! Car ton bras sait porter l'épée, Il sait porter la croix! Ton histoire est une épopée Des plus brillants exploits. Et ta valeur, de foi trempée, Protégera nos foyers et nos droits. Protégera nos foyers et nos droits. And around WWI we had: O Canada! Our fathers' land of old Thy brow is crown'd with leaves of red and gold. Beneath the shade of the Holy Cross Thy children own their birth No stains thy glorious annals gloss Since valour shield thy hearth. Almighty God! On thee we call Defend our rights, forfend this nation's thrall, Defend our rights, forfend this nation's thrall. Though it also faced competition from a popular version in BC: O Canada, our heritage, our love; Thy worth we praise all other lands above; From sea to sea throughout thy length, From pole to borderland, At Britain's side, what'er betide Unflinchingly we'll stand; With heart we sing, "God Save the King", Guide then one empire wide, do we implore, And prosper Canada from shore to shore. Along with competition from other versions, always based on the melody of the French version. Then we had: "O Canada! Our home and native land! True patriot love thou dost in us command. We see thee rising fair, dear land, The True North, strong and free; And stand on guard, O Canada, We stand on guard for thee. And finally a Parliamentary committee adopted the first official English version: O Canada! Our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free! From far and wide, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. So if you're here to prevent any change or modification to the anthem, you're well over a century too late for that.

As it currently stands, we have limited prooperty rights in Canadian law.

Er?

Considering that in the past there has been much opposition to including property rights to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that Quebec already has its own Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, why could Ontario not adopt its own Ontario Declaration of Human Rights. Granted, like the Quebec Charter, it would not be a constitutional text but merely a legislative one which could be abrogated with simply a 50%+1 majority of Members of the Provincial Parliament. However, this does not change the fact that it would still have legislative force in Ontario, and that it would, we hope, become difficult for an MPP to vote to abrogate it once past without consequence in his riding the following election. Though such a bill would have no constitutional force, it would still have at least legal force in the province of Ontario. Any comments on such an idea?

Would the following article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be a reasonable add-on to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Article 17. •(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. •(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

I can't vote in that poll. I'd say a resource tax, and my argument is as follows: Resources, until sold, already belong to the crown. And so the Crown is free to sell these resources at whatever price it sees fit to sell them at. I guess looking at it that way, it would not even be a resource tax, but merely a hike in the price at which the Crown is willing to sell off its resources.

It's not up to us the taxpayer to fund them. I say give them their land back and then let them fend for themselves.

Oh my! I might feel the pinch a little if the strike lasts more than 3 months. What a minor discomfort that could be! 6 months? Irritating. 9 Months... the union will be broke.

It should be pretty revealing that even many on the left have criticized her actions, recognizing that the ends do not justify the means.

I agree that would have been better, yet still wrong. She has the option of engaging in a letter-writing campaign, start a petition, etc. No need to show such disrespect for another person.

She ws just as wrong as if, had a majority NDP-Liberal coaltion been formed, she had pulled out a 'STOP Layton' sign. How many here who support or oppose her actions can say their position would have been equally unwavering had it been the other way around? I respect that she has strong beliefs, and yes she is brave, but still wrong on this action. They wre right in firing her, but I still wish her the best.

Honestly, it looks like the current CPC has just gone back to the old Progressive conservative party days, or almost anyway, with little trace of the old Reform party left, with so many Red Tories from Ontario now holding the balance of power. Honestly, even if there were an open vote on abortion, it would likely not pass. But just as a matter of principle, let MPs represent their constituencies, not their leaders'.

Remember those Dipper MPs who dared support abolishing the long-gun registry?

While I profoundly disagree with Harper muzzling his MPs, let's not pretend that this is unique to the Conservative Party only.

Supply and demand. If there is not enough power to meet the demand, prices will increase. I just want a candidate who'll be honest about that and acknowledge that if we want electricity prices to drop, it will mean producing more electricity. I could see three broad solutions here: 1. The 'capitalist' approach: let the market handle it. 2. The corporatist approach: regulate the market (e.g. require all new buildings to be more energy-efficient (require solar panels on new roofs, etc.)). 3. The socialist approach: increase taxes to build more power plants. Personally, I'd lean more in favour of some form of corporatist corporatist approach myself. None of these solutions will be quick fixes, but at least they'd reveal a realistic plan without pie in the sky promises. As for the cost of electricity, I'd say let's not subsidize it. Charge regular market rate, since that's the best we can do right now.

Follow the KISS principle and just scrap the Senate.

Likewise with sports education. While we can certainly debate the merits and demerits of providing government funding for sports, once the decision is made to fund them, then we need to look at an efficient means of funding them. In my opinion, throwing money at some Olympic or Commonwealth Games Committee is not the best use of such money. Again, do it at the provincial level by increasing funding for sports education in public schools along the same principles set out above for art so as to ensure athletes make a direct contribution via education and fitness for all, not just elites. Again, we can debate whether or not government ought to fund these things, but once the decision is made that government ought to fund them, then let's at least fund them in a well thought out and methodical manner with clearly defined objectives in mind, not just by throwing money at it in such an ad hoc manner.

Highly inefficient approach. Of course we can debate whether the government ought to fund the arts at all. But just for the sake of argument, let's suppose that it's already been decided that the government ought to fund the arts and the only question remaining is 'how'. Should it come down to that, then I don't see how throwing money at some arts bureaucracy like the Canada Council for the Arts is the best use of arts funding. If you want an efficient use of government funding for the arts, here's how I'd go about it: Increase funding for education, introduce a school voucher system at the provincial level, and either add more arts options to the school curriculum or even make arts education compulsory for let's say 9 years starting at the age of 5 let's say. Of course this would mean more provincial rather than federal involvement, but I think it would still be fare more efficient than what the Federal NDP is currently proposing. This would achieve a number of objectives: 1. It would ensure more government funding for the arts (what we'd have decided as the primary objective at the beginning of this post), 2. It would ensure artists be actively involved in the education of the future generation of artists so as to ensure that they give back in a contrete way in return for this investment, 3. It would ensure arts funding be spread evenly throughout the education system province-wide and not just in metropolitan centres, so as to make it part of pupular culture rather than just elite culture. 4. It would ensure artists be more responsive to students' and parent's needs owing to the voucher system. Just throwing money at some arts bureaucracy in Ottawa does not achieve any of this in any efficient, planned or structrued manner. Again, we can certainly debate the merits and demerits of providing government funding for the arts at all. But should it be decided that it ought to be funded, one would think it ought to be funded in a well thorught out and well-planned manner with clearly defined objectives in mind, and not just by throwing money randomly at some bureaucracy like the Canada Arts Council. The NDp seems to have miscalculated here.

We also have to make a distinction between authoritarian socialist and liberal socialist. For instance, let's say we compared a policy that raised income taxes but also allowed charitable contributions to be 100% tax exempt at a 1:1 ratio, vs. another that raises taxes but gives no voice in how that money is to be spent. So even among socialists there could be divergent views.

So you're OK with Calgary centre having well over a hundred MPs looking out for its interests whie well over a hundred constituencies have no oivce in Parliament? No one voted for Harper other than his local constituents. How can you now pretend that he has the legitimacy to silence an MP whose job it is to look out for the interests of his constituents?

Keep party names off the ballot and there is no issue with FPTP. The problem comes when you put party names on the ballot, thus confounding the candidate with his party.