robert_viera
-
Posts
234 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by robert_viera
-
-
Any guesses?
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.
-
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.
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?
-
First idea: community publicity. Yes in total contrast to the current provisions of the youth offenders act, the names of all offenders involved in serious crime are published, unless overruled by a judge.
Benefit: a clear and obvious deterrent for the offender (pre and post crime). An incentive ot improve, or get out of the community. Safer community.
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.
Second idea: heavy escalating fines with expropriation of property and shared family responsibility.E.g.: assault minimum 10 K. Assault with bodily harm or illegal possession of gun: 20 K. Second offense fines double. Can't pay, get stripped of property. Including family property, to the extent of shared responsibility (e.g. under 14 - 100%, 14-16 - 75%, 16-18 and up (if living together) - 50%). No expiration date, but an interest at least at the level of inflation.
Benefit: moneys are the very thing that forces many to get involved in gangs and crime. It's very simple to understand (ask any 12 year old; or even 10 year old).
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:
75. (1) Where, on application by the Commissioner or a person granted leave under section 103.1, the Tribunal finds that(a) a person is substantially affected in his business or is precluded from carrying on business due to his inability to obtain adequate supplies of a product anywhere in a market on usual trade terms,
(
the person referred to in paragraph (a) is unable to obtain adequate supplies of the product because of insufficient competition among suppliers of the product in the market,© the person referred to in paragraph (a) is willing and able to meet the usual trade terms of the supplier or suppliers of the product,
(d) the product is in ample supply, and
(e) the refusal to deal is having or is likely to have an adverse effect on competition in a market,
the Tribunal may order that one or more suppliers of the product in the market accept the person as a customer within a specified time on usual trade terms unless, within the specified time, in the case of an article, any customs duties on the article are removed, reduced or remitted and the effect of the removal, reduction or remission is to place the person on an equal footing with other persons who are able to obtain adequate supplies of the article in Canada.
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:
(3) In order to facilitate compliance with section 153, every company that manufactures a motor vehicle in Canada or that imports a motor vehicle into Canada shall(a) provide, in a standard format via the Internet, motor vehicle owners and repair facilities with unrestricted access to all the service and training information relating to a motor vehicle manufactured by the company, including information necessary to activate the controls of that motor vehicle; and
(
on the request of a motor vehicle owner or a repair facility, promptly make available to the motor vehicle owner or repair facility, through reasonable business means, all the diagnostic tools and capabilities necessary to diagnose, service and repair the motor vehicle.(4) For greater certainty, a company referred to in subsection (3) shall provide to motor vehicle owners and independent repair facilities the same information, and make available to them the same tools and capabilities, that it provides and makes available to franchised dealerships of the company, at the same time that they are provided and made available to those dealerships.
(5) Nothing in this section is deemed to require the disclosure of trade secrets or the public disclosure of any information related exclusively to the design and manufacture of motor vehicle parts.
Section 153 concerns emissions standards compliance. The bill also includes provisions for regulating fees and how the information is provided.
6 month madaTORY for 1 plant
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
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.