Bryan

That's exactly what they are. I posted those earlier in this thread. NP is being very dishonest, there was no climbdown of any definition. Polievre got what he specifically requested, and implemented it. Polievre's problem was never content, it was presentation. He was so abrasive that people didn't want to listen to him.

Squid, YOU make no sense. They have a constitutional right to their religion. They are practicing it in accordance to the law. People who do not subscribe to that are free to go to any of the other schools that don't follow those tenets. They are not being discriminated against, they are being given OPTIONS. Options the law society is trying to TAKE AWAY from the christian students who DO want that atmosphere.

That is exactly the same thing, there is no difference. The school's religion has them offering one of the only refuges a christian person has to be able to study for their chosen profession in a non-hostile environment, and the law society is trying to take that away from them. It's clear and blatant discrimination on the law society's part.

BC is running a $1.5B deficit. The actual amount of money available for new salaries is a negative number. In their extreme generosity, the Govt of BC has NOT asked the teachers to take a pay cut, but have actually offered a modest increase. If the teachers and unions were operating in good faith, they should be thanking the government.

You mean those very minor changes that he ASKED the Senate to suggest?

I've been watching as the best economic managers this country has ever had have lowered taxes and increased revenue. More good news to come.

Just based on Ontario's sheer population alone, there's going to be more christians who want to be lawyers there than anywhere else in Canada.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/y/year-over-year.asp The grownups are talking, run along and play.

My favourite part from that story: How many times have we heard people try to claim that our economy is hurting because all those tax cuts reduced the government's revenues? That's a ten percent INCREASE in tax revenues year over year.

National Post especially owes all of their readers an apology. They published over 2000 pieces claiming to have evidence of systemic fraud. They lied, plain and simple. An Apology from NP AND the outright firing of Mahar and McGregor is the minimum they should do.

There are plenty of pro-gay universities that you can go to, there's no reason for you to sabotage anyone else's right to go to one that is not. You already can have what you want, let them have what they want.

I sure hope the opposition keeps this narrative up. It's helping a lot: Fair Elections Act a Snoozer, yet Provisions are Broadly Supported… http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6480 When's the last time anything that the government was proposing had that broad of mainstream support?

Still wrong. CPC wasn't trying to pitch anything, they asked for an opinion before going forward. That's what we've been waiting for all this time. Now we know what has to be done, that's literally all that happened. Is it disappointing? Sure, that's a lot more work than it should have to be. But at least we know where to put in the work.

New poll from Ipsos is showing a similar results: Likely Voters: CPC: 34 LPC: 33 NDP: 24 BQ: 5 GPC:3 http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6480 That's the highest support that Ipsos has found for the CPC since 2012.

Calling it a defeat is a bit much. The Government were the ones who brought the matter to the SCC to ask for their pre-emptive opinion on specifically what they can and cannot do before they move forward. There was nothing to defeat yet, and the whole purpose of bringing it to the SCC was to avoid having anything GET defeated.

Exactly. You seem to be determined to find something to argue about when there's no disagreement.

I'm opposed to the court allowing sharia law to be the basis of a legal argument inside of a court where sharia is not the law. It's got nothing whatsoever with them expressing their views. Courts routinely decide if they will or will not hear arguments based on their legal merit.

They can speak it, I'm talking about presenting LEGAL arguments in court.

"You could see"? When have I ever complained about Muslims? Certainly, if Muslim lawyers were trying to have Sharia law (which is not our law) enforced, I'd be opposed to having those arguments presented. But I certainly would not advocate for someone's law degree not being recognized just because their religion was islam.

That's what I'm saying, thanks for backing me up.

You keep making my point for me. The period you quoted was 2007-2010. Canada was already well into recovery by 2010. Yes.

Adequate? It was the middle of the global economic meltdown, and our middle class went UP not down. That's spectacular.

Vouching is not allowed in Ontario or Quebec. Nor do the Liberals or the NDP allow it. Nothing unconstitutional about it.

A subpoena is an order compelling someone to give testimony. You cannot compel someone to testify against themselves. You can compel someone to prove that they are eligible to vote -- Ontario and Quebec already do this, So do the Liberal and NDP parties.

It does nothing of the sort. ID is already required in Ontario and Quebec provincial elections. ID s already required when driving a car. ID is already required when crossing the border. ID is already required to be covered for provincial healthcare. There's nothing unconstitutional about asking someone to show evidence that they are eligible for the thing that they are about to do. You can't subpoena someone to testify against themselves. Go look up a thing called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sections 11 and 13 are particularly engaging.