Dave_ON

Agreed and there's no real push by the general public to restore parliament to its former glory. If the public impetus does not exist it will never happen. Perhaps I'm being overly cynical but I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that this will not change. Canadians either lack the will or the inclination to restore parliament, and therefore it’s highly unlikely that it will happen.

While you are quite correct whether or not the government has a leg to stand on at this point in entirely immaterial. The average Canadian seems to lack a fundamental understanding of our system of government as they continue to allow this anathema against the foundation of our society to continue unopposed. We've all seen how very successful the CPC can be when it comes to propaganda, and some Canadians are willing to buy it. They'll let him away with practically anything simply because he's not a Liberal and that's truly sad.

Likely because the average Canadian has little to no interest in doing the aforementioned research and therefore the commentators can get away with it by far and in large. Combine this with the fact that the majority of Canadians get their information about how government works from American Media and well, there you have it. I suppose what really tore it for me was the utter lack of public outcry when Stephen Harper had the bald faced audacity to address the nation during the whole coalition fiasco as if he were the President of Canada and actually had the right and authority to do so! Like he were elected directly by all Canadians as the PM and not simply an MP from Calgary which the GG appointed to that office. I was incensed beyond all reckoning and even typing it now gets me a little riled up. That aside I couldn't believe how many people just accepted it as normal or even legitimate! However, I digress. Shatner is a horrible choice and would he actually live out the entire term? He's 79 after all. Is there an actual shortlist at this point or is it all still just speculation?

Agreed though I would extend that to all areas of life; all things in moderation. The same applies to alcohol, eating, smoking whatever, too much of anything isn’t good.

Your question is immaterial to the point and is strictly opinion. One could argue any number of things isn’t particularly good/beneficial for society. Sugar can lead to tooth decay, smoking can cause cancer. Fact remains people should be free to do what they want regardless of the benefit or lack thereof to society. My central point is we shouldn't be imposing any societal or social "opinions" on others. Just let people live the way they want, so long as we don't obfuscate the potential consequences of the choices they make. As for universal healthcare that is another can of worms that I also addressed in another thread. That's the way universal health care works. I exercise, I don't smoke anything, and drink only occasionally, I haven't been to the hospital in well over 12 years, yet I pay the same taxes as someone who has self induced health issues. That's the way the system works, and I'd rather put up with this and pay for something I don't need/might never use then to run the risk of not having it when I need it.

Did this happen in a private residence? Did the police enter the premises because they smelled pot? Police are unable to enter a residence and search it unless they have a warrant or express permission of the owner. There are certain extenuating/emergency situations where this can be bypassed. Suspician of pot smoking is conspicuously absent from that list. Source http://www.cleo.on.ca/english/pub/onpub/PDF/criminal/polpower.pdf

Indeed and it'll be rainbows and kittens all around. What colour is the sky in your world? It's all well and good to stand on principles, but fact of the matter is they quickly go out the door once the party achieves power. I believe transparency was a mainstay plank in the CPC's platform, one that has oddly been conspicuously absent heretofore. Pragmatism, not principle is a necessary evil in politics.

Please explain why it is your right, or any one else's right for that matter, to tell people what they can and cannot do. How someone chooses to live their life is ultimately none of your concern. If the actions aren't harming anyone, save themselves, leave them in peace.

We're talking about two separate issues. Can cops shut down a party due to a noise complaint of course they can they're responding to a comaplaint and a legal breech. Can a cop "snoop" around a residence because they suspect there's Maryjane in the house? Absolutely not. They can only do this with a warrant or with the express permission of the owner.

Latest EKOS http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/21/ekos-poll-100422.html CPC - 31.7% Liberals - 27.1% NDP - 16.3% Green Party - 12.6% Bloc - 9.5% 2.15% margin for error. Not a lot of movement although if we didn't realize we were in a rut already here's a notation from the pollster.

How exactly do folks in the US who have never been convicted of a sexual assault end up on the registry? Surely you have to be a convicted, not suspected, sex offender to be registered?

If it's private property there's nothing the cops can do without a warrant. They can't even be on his property without permission and if asked to leave they have to comply. My thought is the cops wouldn't even bother to show honestly, unless of course they received numerous calls for noise violations. Even then if they show up on an unrelated matter, without a warrant they won't be doing any "snooping" at all without the owners express permission. At most they can address the noise complaint and nothing more.

Does anybody around you drink? Smoke? Does that not drift over your hedges too? I find it hard to believe that pot smokers in your neighbourhood are "rowdy" by any means and disturbing the peace as it were. I somehow suspect that the filthy language is not a matter of the pot as much as the personalities that live near you. Be that as it may, you can't do much of anything about what someone else does on their private property, unless you can demonstrate that they are disturbing the peace, or causing a general disruption. I'm afraid smoke doesn't meet these criteria.

This is exactly it. I don't think the LPC expected to make gains in the west, much like the CPC has given up on Quebec and Newfoundland.

Who drives to the gym anyway? I guess if you live in a rural area maybe, most people I know work out at a gym that's close by and walk there. Likely you haven't received a speeding ticket because you felt like 20kph was super fast

Even if you make your own wine it's regulated as you can't sell it. You can only make it for personal consumption or give it away as it were. My assumption would be a control board would be setup to regulate, and consequently tax, pot simillarly to how we handle Liquor. This also has the added benefit of giving those hard done by tobacco farmers in Ontario a new crop to grow.

Agreed and the greater implication is 6 plants or greater and you ARE considered to be trafficking as 6 plants plus produces more than one could consume on their own.

It never ceases to amaze me how we continual refuse to learn from history. Prohibition has a long history of ineffectiveness, we went through this with alcohol this shouldn’t be news to us. Yet strangely we’re surprised at how difficult it is to regulate, and how driving it underground only serves to fuel an underground, and consequently untaxed economy. There is a local radio station in London that created a suggested theme for the city “You’re never more than a 15 minute walk away from a grow op when you live in London”. This was based on a map of the city that was superimposed with RCMP grow op busts pinned on it. I’m sure many of the larger cities across Canada would show a similar scenario. So why are we wasting police resources busting grow ops that has yet to show any real progress in stemming the demand or the supply? It’s a tax payload waiting to be collected. Human nature dictates it will do what it wants to do regardless of the legality of it and there will always be some entrepreneur out there willing to fill the demand. It is beyond me why we insist on taxing things like income when there is far more money to be made by taxing people's vices. However, I digress. As far as I see it whether a substance is harmful or not is immaterial and should not factor into the legality of it. Tobacco, Alcohol, even caffeine is all deleterious in one way or another, why should Pot be regarded any differently?

I run into this kind of thing in my line of work all the time. I work for a software company in implementation management. We travel roughtly 26 weeks a year, single men under 35 dominate the field. We only have two women in the department both are over 45. It was a similar situation in the company I worked for previously. Women definitely have the "potential pregnancy" handicap working against them.

I've always felt that the supporters of the reform movement were overly optimistic towards its prospects. I honestly feel that when they joined the PC party they had peaked and that they wouldn’t have made the inroads in SW Ontario that they needed to form a government. This is strictly based on my current perception of course as I was living in NB at the time this all took place. Suffice it to say out East the Reform party was largely viewed as a Western version of the BLOC party. In fact many folks out there called it the Western BLOC. This had nothing to do with "Liberal media smear campaigns" and everything to do with how the party handled itself. I remember when they were trying to run candidates out East, when they were asked about issues that concerned Maritimers, namely the struggling forestry, fishing and ship building industries they didn’t have a plan, or even the most remote idea of what was actually at issue. They talked a lot about senate reform and a lot of other “heifer dust” as my grandma put it, but nothing of substance that would resonate in the Atlantic Provinces. This is what I perceive as the fundamental issue. They had a lot of ideas that were popular out west, that are either non issues or a tough sell to the east. This is ultimately why parties, the successful ones at least, drift to the centre eventually. It’s the only place you’re going to get sufficient support to form the government. It’s why the Conservatives and the Progressive’s joined forces to begin with. It’s why gradually the Conservative element was dropped. It’s why the Reform, became the Alliance party. The traces of reformism were quickly ousted and were maintained as window dressing only. The principles were long gone. Then a quick name change to CPC and suddenly almost instant success. They were finally within striking distance of the long sought majority, and all it took was sacrificing their very founding ideals, which apparently to them seemed a small price to pay. I guess the question we have to ask is why does this cycle continue? The cycle of Conservatism flaring up and then tempering down and dying out. Why do all parties eventually end up in the “mushy middle” as many on this board are want to say? Why has the LPC enjoyed, until recently of course, a rather smooth and successful political history? Why has conservatism struggled through in comparison? It always makes me think of the old Latin maxim “in medio stat virtus” in the centre lies virtue. In a country as regionalized as Canada is, I think it’s the only ground you’ll ever be able to please most of the people most of the time.

I'm not so much proposing going back in time as I am utilizing the system as it currently exists and as it was originally designed. I'm not convinced that PR would solve our issue. There are those that are convinced the days of majority governments are a thing of the past, I sincerely doubt that's the case however, I think it's what we're stuck with for the foreseeable future. Minorities generally aren't an issue and historically it is under minorities that progress has been made. This of course was dependant on a strong opposition. This is not the case currently; fact is no opposition party is in a position to replace the current government. PR I believe, would simply exacerbate this situation and we would be in a perpetual minority situation. Looking at other countries that have a PR system you see innumerable and constantly shifting political alliances, frequent elections and a lot less legislative efficiency. As for the constitutional division of powers I'm not certain what you're referring to precisely. We already have a fairly solid division of powers in place.

Mmmm wax self righteous much? Abortion is a far bigger issue than what you're attempting to distil it down to. Suffice it to say, this gentlemen is a back bancher for a reason and it's a private member's bill because the CPC would never ever support it. It's folks like Bruinooge and apparently you that get all conservatives painted with the same religious zealot wing nut brush.

Indeed and given that just under half of parliament is directly controlled by the PMO and the other half is divided into three this is no small task. I'm pessimistic that Parliament shall regain its supremacy given that we've been trending away from individual representation and more toward party representation for quite some time. It's sad but parties have really taken over our political system and there doesn't seem to be any practical way to take it back.

Nor did I state or otherwise imply it was "corruption", well moral corruption notwithstanding of course. Anyway that's beside the point, I was merely stating they were not "former members" when the incident occurred. "We're no worse than the other guy" is hardly a motto one should live by.

The PMO disagrees with you apparently... "serious and credible allegations" sounds like the PMO and the CPC were fairly confident there was sufficient evidence to get the RCMP and Ethics commission involved. Now I know you're a die hard CPC fan boy but surely even you can't deny that there is something seriously wrong with situation.