P. McGee

Hot to trot is perhaps an exaggeration. I said that subsidies, such as those that already exist, don't seem unreasonable. One thing to consider, given the structure of our healthcare system, would be that non-swimmers who suffer brain damage in near-drowning accidents can require some very expensive care, sometimes for life. Are existing swimming programs at schools and municipal facilities not worth the expense? Swim instructors and lifeguards are cheaper by the hour than doctors and nurses.

Subsidies for swimming classes don't seem unreasonable, and it seems they do exist at the municipal level and through certain school systems. I also see no problem with such programs being "accessible" to immigrant populations, but targeting those groups to the exclusion of others seems unwarranted. What exactly makes this a federal issue though?

If a big part of the problem is the supply of doctors, why not raise medical school subsidies but tie them to subsequent work in needed areas? That way, doctors who work in remote areas would have their debts forgiven the fastest, urban doctors would have theirs forgiven after a few more years of service, and doctors who move out of the country after graduating would owe the entire unsubsidized cost of their education. Also, isn't the whole hospital model of sticking all the sick people into one big building getting a bit dated, especially with all the concern over disease outbreaks? How many people get an infectious disease at the hospital?

Isn't the national symbol of Lebanon a tree (Lebanese cedar)? When I first saw this story, I wondered if the tree being trimmed by the Israelis when they were fired upon might have been one of that type. Obviously that would in no way excuse the Lebanese response, but if true it seems to fill in a gap in the story.

The rebirthing business does sound more than a bit flaky, but the cost was only a few hundred dollars. Nothing else mentioned in the Winnipeg Sun story seems to be especially expensive or irrelevant to department work, so this hardly makes the AG's office look hypocritical in identifying multi-billion dollar expenditures as wasteful. If there is proof to support the assertion that the Conservatives were the source of this story, it seems to me that the whole business may be more damaging to their credibility than it will be to the Auditor General's.

Why were the police advancing on the blockade in the dark in the first place? Should the person who made the call to send them in at that time bear some responsibility for the death that followed?

Argus, the quote you gave does seem to give more credibility to your position, care to share a link to the source? I still haven't been able to find much on past use of the method that was used to make this into law, largely because I'm not sure where to look. "Executive privilege" seems to be a similar concept but I'm not aware of a corresponding Canadian term. Have other minority governments changed the Criminal Code by passing similar regulations, bypassing the need for majority support with a proposed bill?

Argus alluded earlier to the idea that only those involved in a criminal enterprise ("criminal organization" in official terms) need to worry about the law, referencing the example of a friendly poker game. But how is a criminal organization defined? The Criminal Code includes numerous provisions dealing specifically with organized crime. Section 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code defines “criminal organization” to mean a group, however organized, that (a) is composed of three or more persons in or outside Canada; and ( has as one of its main purposes or main activities the facilitation or commission of one or more serious offences that, if committed, would likely result in the direct or indirect receipt of a material benefit, including a financial benefit, by the group or by any of the persons who constitute the group. So persons A and B each throw in $10 and approach person C to buy a quantity of marijuana less than 3 kg with their combined money. The (temporary) association of all three people would appear to exist for the main purpose of completing this transaction, which offers a financial benefit for person C and material benefits for the other two. In the case of a poker game between at least three people, it would not be impossible to make a similar argument, although personally I don't believe enforcement is very likely in that case.

Does anyone else find it concerning that this was added to the law as a regulation, rather than a bill that would require majority support? I would be interested if anyone has more information/analysis on past use of this technique by minority governments in Canada. Is there anything that can't be put into law by this method, assuming it's added to an existing bill? Nobody seems to have posted the link to the regulation itself so here it is: http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2010/2010-08-04/html/sor-dors161-eng.html As far as the actual content of the regulation, my feeling is that the parts about gambling etc may be mostly a distraction from the changes in drug law. The most significant with respect to the scale of potential enforcement may be section 2b, which I understand to mean that trafficking in any amount less than 3 kg of marijuana or hashish would now be a serious crime, assuming that three or more people were involved.