robert_viera

The elder Mr. Brown also defended Terry Parker against charges of marijuana possession in the early 1980's. Mr Parker would later become the first Canadian granted a medical exemption to possess marijuana. In the last federal election, Mr. Parker was the Marijuana Party candidate in the riding of Parkdale-High Park.

Edmond Brown, according to an October 28, 1981 article in the Globe and Mail, was President of the Toronto chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). The quote comes from a 1978 case in which Mr. Brown, a criminal lawyer, challenged the constitutionality of Canada's laws prohibiting marijuana possession. Mr. Brown is the father of Barrie Conservative MP Patrick Brown.

Any guesses?

Who once argued "If Parliament declared oranges a narcotic one could find oneself in prison for seven years for possession of an orange"? *Hint: He was a prominent member of an organization that advocated for marijuana decriminalization and is the father of a Conservative MP.

Has the Governor General offered any explanation for her decision? Is there any requirement that she explain her decision? If preventing a vote of non-confidence in his government was the only reason Mr. Harper asked for a prorogation, I think the Governor General made a mistake. The only way this will be settled is if a transcript of the discussion between Mr. Harper and the Governor General is released.

Mr. Harper wouldn't be in such a rush now if Parliament had sat for more than 13 days in the second half of 2008. Mr. Harper's decision to call an election rather than resuming Parliament after the summer break meant that Parliament wasn't able to react to the financial crisis when it broke during the election. Parliament did not resume sitting for more than a month after the election. When Parliament finally resumed sitting, Mr. Harper's decision to downplay both the severity of the economic crisis and the necessary response and Mr. Harper's decision to include poison-pill provisions in the economic update led the opposition parties to threaten a vote of non-confidence in Mr. Harper's government. Mr. Harper's response, to prorogue Parliament for most of the next two months, further delayed any action by Parliament in response to the economic crisis. If Mr. Harper is in a rush now, he has primarily himself to blame.

It's been more than 4 months now since the election campaign ended. Has anyone heard about any developments in the investigation into these crimes, or do the police only investigate Liberals during elections?

I would think that the young people who would be deterred by the thought of their name being published are probably the young people who are not likely to commit crimes in the first place. This wouldn't be a deterrent to rich kids and would make poor kids even more desperate. What if a poor kid and his family couldn't afford to pay? Would you put them in jail? Jail for poor kids and fines for the children of rich people?

I had a look at the bill in question, bill C-273. It proposes to define "technical information" as a "product" under section 75 of the Competition Act. Section 75 falls under the heading of "Restrictive Trade Practices" and specifically "Refusal to Deal". From the Competition Act: If I understand this correctly, the bill aims to prevent motor vehicle manufacturers from refusing to sell a product, namely the technical information needed to "repair, service, and diagnose" a motor vehicle, to motor vehicle owners and independent repair shops, because that would "substantially" affect the independent's business or even preclude them from carrying on their business, and that would have an adverse effect on competition in the market. The actual "Right to Repair" part of the bill comes in the form of an amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act: Section 153 concerns emissions standards compliance. The bill also includes provisions for regulating fees and how the information is provided.