Things about the Tory government which disappoint me.

[M.Dancer]

In fact, that is quite true. The PC party was the result of a merger between the Progressive party and the Conservative Party, but over the years the Progressives had come to dominate, and eventually took over the party entirely. There simply were no conservative policies advocated by the old PC party. It was, as almost everyone acknowledge, just another liberal party undera different name. People called them tories out of habit, but there was nothing conservative about them.

That is essentially correct.

[Wilber]

Your speculation that the lawyers on the committee all want to be judges has no basis in fact.

Read it again, I never said that. All judges are lawyers and many lawyers aspire to be judges. Am I wrong?

That is your big reason for wanting police on the committee? "Give me a break." You'll have to do better than that. Why do you want police on the committee?

I've told you about ten times. The police are just as big a part of the justice system as the judiciary and legal community but you would exclude them. What is your reason for that other than a prejudice against the police?

Different sentences for similar crimes in different areas of the country is a valid concern. But it has absolutely nothing to do with wanting police on judicial selection committees.

It has absolutely to with the selection of judges and the people who select those judges. They are all applying the same laws. Why else is there no consistency?

Of course the police have control over who goes to jail.

They have absolutely no control. In my province they can't even press charges, let alone send someone to jail.

Police do their best to create a case against an individual with one purpose in mind - putting that person in jail.

They sure spend a lot of time beating their heads against a wall around here then. They do their best to create a case they can give to the prosecution to get a conviction. That is all they can do.

That is their goal. It is not the same as the judge's goal. And I think it is inappropriate to have someone on the committee helping to select a judge based on a goal that has nothing to do with a judge's job.

Why do you assume that the rest of the committee do? They are all selected by different parts of the system who have their own goals. In that case I don't want any QC's or defense councilors on committees selecting trial judges because I have to expect them to pursue interests that would result in the selection of judges who help them achieve their goals.

That is practically impossible. The number of people who would count as a stakeholder is enormous. Even poverty rights groups have a stake in the justice system. It also brings us back to the point about convicted felons. Even those convicts still serving time have a stake in the justice system. If you want to include police because they have a stake in the justice system then you have to accept that criminals also have a stake in the justice system.

I am speaking of stakeholders within the justice system. If you want to put convicted felons in the same category as the judiciary, legal community and the police. Fill your boots. I don't think you will get much support. Tell that to the cop who comes the next time you need one. Tell it to the judge to.

Given that judges do more than just sit on criminal trials I don't see why experience with the criminal justice system is a mandatory criteria. Even more to the point, you brought up the public interest earlier. Community members who sit on the committees for this reason can do so without being employed by the criminal justice system.

So you have no problem having people with no experience in a particular field being involved as long as none of them are from the police.

[HisSelf]

Would you give a seat on the committee to a convicted felon? Convicts "have just as big a stake in the success of our legal system as the judiciary."

The problem is that the police are there to put the accused person in jail. The judge is there to impartially run the trial, determine appropriate sentences and, in the case of a trial without a jury, impartially weigh the evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Having the police help pick judges gives the appearance that they are picking pro-police judges. Whether this happens or not, the appearance is damaging enough.

After all, how would it look if we gave people serving prison terms a seat at the table? If one side gets to help pick judges, why not the other side too? Isn't the justice system supposed to be about fairness?

This is sort of what I was getting at. But even more, in any police state the biggest problem is the PO-LEECE! Look at the Stasi in East Germany. The Savak in Iran. The KGB in Russia. Oh I know, I'm being alarmist, but listen...

Illegality is determined by parliament and the chamber of sober second thought is not the powerless senate (snore) even if they are elected. The chamber of sober second thought is the judiciary and the Supreme Court. The laws are drafted and passed by bureaucrats and politicians. The judiciary, on the other hand, are professionals, and the best we have in the legal realm. If you were sick, a doctor at this level would be the best you could ever want. If you had a retirement portfolio, an investment advisor at this level might very well secure your future.

The police have an important role in the justice system, but if they have anything to say, they should be talking to our elected politicians and they should keep their paws off of the judicial process, thank you very much.

Bk59's example speaks to part of the issue, but here is the other part: if the police have a hand in picking judges, then so should the bankers, real estate agents, mutual fund companies, telemarketers, landlords, mining companies... Sounds a lot like a Politburo maybe? Or maybe Tammany Hall?

If the politicians cannot handle the problem of appointing judges on their own, then they are usurping their power in favour of one of their constituencies. Wrong, wrong, wrong....

[Wilber]

The police have an important role in the justice system, but if they have anything to say, they should be talking to our elected politicians and they should keep their paws off of the judicial process, thank you very much.

Bk59's example speaks to part of the issue, but here is the other part: if the police have a hand in picking judges, then so should the bankers, real estate agents, mutual fund companies, telemarketers, landlords, mining companies... Sounds a lot like a Politburo maybe? Or maybe Tammany Hall?

The judiciary, legal community and the politicians have seven of the eight positions on the committee. Law enforcement has one. What are you babbling about?

[bk59]

All judges are lawyers and many lawyers aspire to be judges.

But no lawyer who wants to be a judge will be on these committees for the very simple reason that you can't apply to be a judge if you are on the judicial selection committee. Unless you have seen a very different selection criteria than I have.

I've told you about ten times. The police are just as big a part of the justice system as the judiciary and legal community but you would exclude them. What is your reason for that other than a prejudice against the police?

And I've already told you that there are other stakeholders in the justice system that are excluded as well so it can't be prejudice. You have also not shown what the police bring to the table unless they are there to pick pro-police judges.

It has absolutely to with the selection of judges and the people who select those judges. They are all applying the same laws. Why else is there no consistency?

There are many reasons why this may be so, none of which have to do with the makeup of selection committees. Each region has its own committee. A BC committee selects BC judges. An Alberta committee selects Alberta judges. These committees have nothing to do with how judges in other areas of the country sentence criminals. Changing the makeup of the committees will not alter this fact. Unless you want a single national committee to select judges for the whole country, but I happen to think that is a bad idea. (No room for local input and needs, etc.)

They have absolutely no control. In my province they can't even press charges, let alone send someone to jail.

The Crown can't press charges unless the police have gathered evidence. The judge can't sentence someone unless the police and the Crown have brought them before the court. The judge can't sentence someone unless the police have gathered evidence.

Obviously they do have some control. Someone they disregard as a suspect will never be brought before a Crown or a judge.

They sure spend a lot of time beating their heads against a wall around here then. They do their best to create a case they can give to the prosecution to get a conviction. That is all they can do.

Exactly. They do their best to create a case they can give to the prosecution to get a conviction so that the person goes to jail. The point of convicting people is to sentence them. For serious crimes that involves jail.

Why do you assume that the rest of the committee do? They are all selected by different parts of the system who have their own goals. In that case I don't want any QC's or defense councilors on committees selecting trial judges because I have to expect them to pursue interests that would result in the selection of judges who help them achieve their goals.

I'm pretty sure the lawyers on the committee who look at an applicant's legal knowledge and experience are pursuing a goal that is in line with the goals of the judiciary. That is a judiciary that knows the law.

QCs can be defense or Crown or non-criminal. The designation is irrelevant and has even been discontinued in places like Ontario. Defense counsel are balanced by Crowns. Again, there is nothing that shows that anyone previously on the committees were doing anything self-serving. And even if they were, they were balanced out by competing interests on the committee. The police do not have that balance.

I am speaking of stakeholders within the justice system. If you want to put convicted felons in the same category as the judiciary, legal community and the police.

Of course convicted felons are stakeholders. Do they have an interest in who is a judge? Yes. Plain and simple. This is why you need a better reason for including police on the committee. Because I am not the one putting convicts and police on the same footing - you are. By giving a poor reason that applies to police and to convicts.

So you have no problem having people with no experience in a particular field being involved as long as none of them are from the police.

And how did you reach that conclusion?

The judiciary, legal community and the politicians have seven of the eight positions on the committee. Law enforcement has one. What are you babbling about?

I have already shown why that "one voice out of eight" argument does not hold water.

[bk59]

Does it really matter what term the parties use? We only have three viable, national parties in Canada. Generally speaking, when you put them on a spectrum the NDP are on the left, the Liberals are in the centre and the Conservatives are on the right. Arguing over who gets to use the term "Tory" and the validity of that term just takes away from what Canadians should be looking at - the actual policies of the parties. Voting for someone just because of the party name is, to put it delicately, really stupid. I'm not saying anyone here is doing that, but I find the discussion fairly academic. As a further disclaimer, an academic discussion isn't necessarily a bad thing, I'm just not losing any sleep over the term Tory in a discussion thread entitled "Things about the Tory government which disappoint me." There are so many other more interesting (to me) issues that could be discussed here.

[bk59]

Adding to my list of things that disappoint me:

Claiming to support fixed election dates and then saying that fixed election dates do not apply to minority governments when they want an election. It just seems a bit too convenient. Almost as if they were trying to gain partisan political advantage.

Harper in 2006:

But fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar simply for partisan political advantage.

Good thing they don't apply any more.

[Argus]

This is sort of what I was getting at. But even more, in any police state the biggest problem is the PO-LEECE! Look at the Stasi in East Germany. The Savak in Iran. The KGB in Russia. Oh I know, I'm being alarmist, but listen...

The problem is not the police, whether it be the OPP, the Statis or the KGB. The problem is those who control the police.

Illegality is determined by parliament and the chamber of sober second thought is not the powerless senate (snore) even if they are elected. The chamber of sober second thought is the judiciary and the Supreme Court.

Why should unelected party hacks get to second judge what parliament has done? And I'm talking about judges as much as the senate. You don't get to be a judge without a lot of political brown-nosing. Some of our judges are ex-MPs and candidates who failed to get elected, for example, and were given judges seats as payoffs. Others are party loyalists, or party fund-raisers, or political activists.

The laws are drafted and passed by bureaucrats and politicians. The judiciary, on the other hand, are professionals, and the best we have in the legal realm.

Are you for real? Quality of thought, wisdom, intelligence, knowledge of law: these are all quiet unimportant in the selection of judges in Canada. It's who you know that matters, and nothing more.

The police have an important role in the justice system, but if they have anything to say, they should be talking to our elected politicians and they should keep their paws off of the judicial process, thank you very much.

The problem is police talk to local police boards, while judges are appointed at a different level. As a group which interacts daily with the judiciary they probably know better than anyone else which judges are complete morons and which judges are capable, and thus what to look for in prospective judges.

Bk59's example speaks to part of the issue, but here is the other part: if the police have a hand in picking judges, then so should the bankers, real estate agents, mutual fund companies, telemarketers, landlords, mining companies... Sounds a lot like a Politburo maybe? Or maybe Tammany Hall?

It doesn't sound to me as though you know any more about the Politiburo or Tammany Hall than you do about the selection of Canadian judges. However, I wouldn't mind a broad selection of Canadians getting to sit in on and select judges.

[Argus]

Adding to my list of things that disappoint me:

Claiming to support fixed election dates and then saying that fixed election dates do not apply to minority governments when they want an election. It just seems a bit too convenient. Almost as if they were trying to gain partisan political advantage.

Harper in 2006:

Good thing they don't apply any more.

It's called realism. There is no way this parliament is going to make it to the end. The opposition are simply waiting and watching the polls, looking for the time when the polls say they have a better chance of winning. The instant the polls look good they'll pull the trigger on an election. Do you doubt it for a second? Has anyone doubted it for the past year? Have the opposition made any secret about that? Why should Harper let them make the choice for him?

[Argus]

I'm pretty sure the lawyers on the committee who look at an applicant's legal knowledge and experience are pursuing a goal that is in line with the goals of the judiciary. That is a judiciary that knows the law.

You make it sund like they test the subjects in their knowledge. That simply isn't true. Odd, if you think about it. If you want to work for the government as a clerk, you need to not only show your academic qualifications and the experience you have, but you need to pass a number of tests on various aptitudes, including communications, teamwork, client service orientation, etc. etc. If you want to be a police officer you have to undergo extensive testing of your personality and background before you begin a long, gruelling training session. But just about any halfwit lawyer can put on a black robe and call himself a judge with no testing required.

[bk59]

It's called realism. There is no way this parliament is going to make it to the end.

...

Why should Harper let them make the choice for him?

Why should Harper let the opposition determine when they vote no confidence and force an election? Are you looking for a reason other than the fact that Harper said he was endorsing fixed election dates so that a Prime Minister wouldn't wait for an opportune time to call an election? So the answer simply is, Harper should wait for a vote of no confidence because he said that the only way there would be an election is if four years passed or there was a vote of no confidence. If he isn't going to stand by what he previously said just because it is no longer convenient then his promises mean nothing and he is no different from any other politician.

People said this minority government wouldn't last a year. It did. The only way you know this session won't make it four years is if the opposition actually votes no confidence before those four years are up. Until that time it is just speculation. And not a good enough reason to go back on what you promised. And legislated.

Incidentally, it is not called realism. It is called opportunism. He said he wouldn't call an election and now he appears to have reversed that position. Don't blame me just because he painted himself into a corner and now is trying to get out of it.

[bk59]

You make it sund like they test the subjects in their knowledge. That simply isn't true. Odd, if you think about it. If you want to work for the government as a clerk, you need to not only show your academic qualifications and the experience you have, but you need to pass a number of tests on various aptitudes, including communications, teamwork, client service orientation, etc. etc. If you want to be a police officer you have to undergo extensive testing of your personality and background before you begin a long, gruelling training session. But just about any halfwit lawyer can put on a black robe and call himself a judge with no testing required.

When a doctor is promoted to head of department, does he or she take a test? When an engineer or scientist applies for a promotion is there a test? When a police officer is promoted to police chief is there a test?

When someone becomes a new police officer there is a test, but then again when someone becomes a new lawyer there is a test. So your analogy does not work for judges.

In our society there are numerous examples of people taking on new responsibility where there is no test. The lack of a test does not mean that the people being given new responsibility are unqualified.

I also think you misread my post. I made it clear that lawyers on the committee can look at an applicant's legal knowledge and experience. That in no way implies a test. That knowledge can easily be inferred from their resume, publications, etc.

[DrGreenthumb]

It's called realism. There is no way this parliament is going to make it to the end. The opposition are simply waiting and watching the polls, looking for the time when the polls say they have a better chance of winning. The instant the polls look good they'll pull the trigger on an election. Do you doubt it for a second? Has anyone doubted it for the past year? Have the opposition made any secret about that? Why should Harper let them make the choice for him?

seems to me that some of you would give harper a free pass for anything he does. It is the perogative of the opposition parties to bring down the government by voting non-confidence in a minority government. The cons have not been brought down on any confidence motion and have been able to pass legislation, even legistlation that they refuse to abide by themselves, like fixed election date laws. Harper can't have it both ways, if the opposition is not stopping him then parliament is functioning. What SHOULD happen if Harper asks the GG to dissolve parliament is that the opposition should be given the chance to govern as a coalition and see if THEY can make it work. Saying that fixed election laws do not apply to minority governments is a total cop-out. The only time they don't apply in a minority is when the opposition votes non-confidence in the governing party, and that has not happened. Just another example of how harper and co want the laws of this country to be applied to everyone but themselves. The hang em high crowd always gets cold feet when it is their own necks headed for the noose.

[Wilber]

But no lawyer who wants to be a judge will be on these committees for the very simple reason that you can't apply to be a judge if you are on the judicial selection committee. Unless you have seen a very different selection criteria than I have.

They only serve for two to three years and past membership on one of them could quite possibly give a lawyer a leg up if their name did come up for selection.

And I've already told you that there are other stakeholders in the justice system that are excluded as well so it can't be prejudice. You have also not shown what the police bring to the table unless they are there to pick pro-police judges.

Why do you assume that of all the stakeholders now on these committees, the police would be the only ones who might show any prejudice?

There are many reasons why this may be so, none of which have to do with the makeup of selection committees. Each region has its own committee. A BC committee selects BC judges. An Alberta committee selects Alberta judges. These committees have nothing to do with how judges in other areas of the country sentence criminals. Changing the makeup of the committees will not alter this fact.

Like what reasons? This statement makes no sense. If the discrepancy in sentences has nothing to do with the makeup of the selection committees and the judges they select, why do you object to the police having representation?

The Crown can't press charges unless the police have gathered evidence. The judge can't sentence someone unless the police and the Crown have brought them before the court. The judge can't sentence someone unless the police have gathered evidence.

Exactly, so why do you maintain that the police can put people in jail? Defense council gathers and presents evidence in order to get an acquittal but you have no objection to someone who acts as defense council being on one of these committees. Why is that?

Exactly. They do their best to create a case they can give to the prosecution to get a conviction so that the person goes to jail. The point of convicting people is to sentence them. For serious crimes that involves jail.

They try to help the prosecution get a conviction, whether the person goes to jail is entirely up to the judge.

I'm pretty sure the lawyers on the committee who look at an applicant's legal knowledge and experience are pursuing a goal that is in line with the goals of the judiciary. That is a judiciary that knows the law.

And who gets selected determines the goals of the judiciary which will reflect the goals of the people who selected them.

Again, there is nothing that shows that anyone previously on the committees were doing anything self-serving. And even if they were, they were balanced out by competing interests on the committee. The police do not have that balance.

Another statement that makes no sense. You expect the police to be the only ones on the committee who should be totally un self-serving. Anyone else who might be is OK because they will be balanced out.

Of course convicted felons are stakeholders. Do they have an interest in who is a judge? Yes. Plain and simple. This is why you need a better reason for including police on the committee. Because I am not the one putting convicts and police on the same footing - you are. By giving a poor reason that applies to police and to convicts.

I'm not the one trying to put convicted felons on judicial advisory committees. You're on your own there buddy.

And how did you reach that conclusion?

Because you don't seem to care who is on them as long as it isn't the police. See above.

I have already shown why that "one voice out of eight" argument does not hold water.

You have?

[Wilber]

Why should Harper let the opposition determine when they vote no confidence and force an election? Are you looking for a reason other than the fact that Harper said he was endorsing fixed election dates so that a Prime Minister wouldn't wait for an opportune time to call an election? So the answer simply is, Harper should wait for a vote of no confidence because he said that the only way there would be an election is if four years passed or there was a vote of no confidence. If he isn't going to stand by what he previously said just because it is no longer convenient then his promises mean nothing and he is no different from any other politician.

I am a big fan of fixed election dates but we are into new territory here. The idea of fixed dates was to even the playing field by not giving one side total control over when Parliament would be dissolved. In a majority situation, that is always the government. In a minority, the playing field is already balanced. Either side has the power to force an election. If either party commits to a fixed date and the other doesn't, the playing field is unbalanced again. It is hypocritical of any leader to criticize others for not sticking to that commitment if they are not prepared to do so themselves. If Dion wants to call Harpers bluff on this issue, he should commit to the fixed date.

As for whether we "need" an election sometime before October 09. Pure politics, the only "needs" are political.

[DrGreenthumb]

They only serve for two to three years and past membership on one of them could quite possibly give a lawyer a leg up if their name did come up for selection.

Why do you assume that of all the stakeholders now on these committees, the police would be the only ones who might show any prejudice?

Like what reasons? This statement makes no sense. If the discrepancy in sentences has nothing to do with the makeup of the selection committees and the judges they select, why do you object to the police having representation?

Exactly, so why do you maintain that the police can put people in jail? Defense council gathers and presents evidence in order to get an acquittal but you have no objection to someone who acts as defense council being on one of these committees. Why is that?

They try to help the prosecution get a conviction, whether the person goes to jail is entirely up to the judge.

And who gets selected determines the goals of the judiciary which will reflect the goals of the people who selected them.

Another statement that makes no sense. You expect the police to be the only ones on the committee who should be totally un self-serving. Anyone else who might be is OK because they will be balanced out.

I'm not the one trying to put convicted felons on judicial advisory committees. You're on your own there buddy.

Because you don't seem to care who is on them as long as it isn't the police. See above.

You have?

The problem we have with police picking judges is that adding a cop to the selection process upsets the balance between opposing interests in favour of the prosecution, or the accusers. We already have a prosecuter on the committee, and a defense lawyer to balance that out. Adding a cop without adding someone to the opposite end of the spectrum tips the scales in favour of the side that is making accusations and against the accused who is supposed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty. Add to this the Tory mandatory minimums and reverse onus shit and you have a recipe for a police state. You cowards who would trade your freedoms for some percieved protection deserve neither.

[Argus]

Why should Harper let the opposition determine when they vote no confidence and force an election? Are you looking for a reason other than the fact that Harper said he was endorsing fixed election dates so that a Prime Minister wouldn't wait for an opportune time to call an election?

And that makes sense - when the prime minister can call elections at his discretion, because that is an unfair advantage. But when the opposition can, in effect, call an election any time they want, then things are actually well-balanced in that regard. If we hold him to a set vote - but don't hold the opposition, then we're back to the unfairness again, only now from the other direction.

Incidentally, it is not called realism. It is called opportunism.

Then call it politics, if you like, but I accept that things are different in a minority parliament.

[Argus]

When a doctor is promoted to head of department, does he or she take a test? When an engineer or scientist applies for a promotion is there a test? When a police officer is promoted to police chief is there a test?

When someone becomes a new police officer there is a test, but then again when someone becomes a new lawyer there is a test. So your analogy does not work for judges.

In our society there are numerous examples of people taking on new responsibility where there is no test. The lack of a test does not mean that the people being given new responsibility are unqualified.

I also think you misread my post. I made it clear that lawyers on the committee can look at an applicant's legal knowledge and experience. That in no way implies a test. That knowledge can easily be inferred from their resume, publications, etc.

I know of no government job where you apply and simply walk in and sit down without a test, no matter what your resumé says. That includes EX level jobs. We had a large external test for mid-level bureacrats earlier in the year, salary abut $75k, and they had to pass multiple tests and interviews. When a senior manager wants to become a director - or director general, there is extensive testing which even includes actors and sets where they are faced with a variety of situations and observed in their reactions. Just because some guy has been acting as a contract lawyer for a while that does not tell us much about his judgement or his ability to assess the truthfulness or logic of witnesses. But that's kind of beside the point. The point is that there is no real test of whether a lawyer is "top rated" or is very knowledgeable, or is an expert in any aspect of law whatsoever. The only real requirement is that you persuade some politicians that they should appoint you. So the suggestion these are the top legal minds in Canada is without any basis of support or evidence.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Argus

[Wilber]

The problem we have with police picking judges is that adding a cop to the selection process upsets the balance between opposing interests in favour of the prosecution, or the accusers. We already have a prosecuter on the committee, and a defense lawyer to balance that out.

We do? Here is who gets to submit committee members.

Chief Justice 1

Law Society 1

Bar Association 1

Law Enforcement 1

Minister of Justice 3

Who knows what some of them stand for. You assume that the three appointees of the minister and the police will vote as a block. If that concerns you so much I wouldn't object to one more member from the legal profession. To me it is about representation, not control.

[bk59]

The point is that there is no real test of whether a lawyer is "top rated" or is very knowledgeable, or is an expert in any aspect of law whatsoever. The only real requirement is that you persuade some politicians that they should appoint you. So the suggestion these are the top legal minds in Canada is without any basis of support or evidence.

There is no basis of support or evidence that these are incompetent or unknowledgeable legal practitioners. Just your opinion.

As for ratings, there are directories of top rated lawyers in the country. So there is some way of making that determination. Yes, they are created by the legal community, but if you want to know who knows the law you are going to have to ask the legal community. There is even an argument that asking the legal community as a whole is better than a made up test written by a select few.

Of course none of what you said really makes the case for adding police officers to the committee.

[bk59]

Why do you assume that of all the stakeholders now on these committees, the police would be the only ones who might show any prejudice?

Everyone else represents a valid interest. The police do not represent any valid interest that is not already represented and they do represent an inappropriate interest (picking judges who are pro-police).

Like what reasons? This statement makes no sense. If the discrepancy in sentences has nothing to do with the makeup of the selection committees and the judges they select, why do you object to the police having representation?

My objection to police on the selection committees has nothing to do with sentencing across the country. You're the one who brought that up. I have no idea why you are confusing my position on that.

And how does changing the makeup of the committee affect sentencing in a different region of the country? Do police in Alberta know more about sentencing in Newfoundland than the others on the Alberta committee?

Here's a reason that sentencing may be different, and it has nothing to do with selecting judges. Different regions of the country have different wait times for trials. If someone is sitting in jail for longer before their trial then their post trial jail time will take that into account. So yes, the statement makes perfect sense.

Exactly, so why do you maintain that the police can put people in jail? Defense council gathers and presents evidence in order to get an acquittal but you have no objection to someone who acts as defense council being on one of these committees. Why is that?

I said that the goal of the police is to put people in jail. This is different than saying that they have the sole power to put people in jail. Police investigate people and gather evidence with the ultimate goal of having that person found guilty and sentenced, usually to jail time.

As I and others have pointed out, defense council and Crowns are both on these committees. There is balance between competing interests.

Another statement that makes no sense. You expect the police to be the only ones on the committee who should be totally un self-serving. Anyone else who might be is OK because they will be balanced out.

You still haven't shown me what interests the police will represent that either aren't already represented or are simply inappropriate (i.e. picking judges that favour the police).

I'm not saying the police will definitely be self-serving. But the worst case scenario is that everyone on the committee is self-serving. In which case now the committee is unbalanced and favours pro-police, pro-prosecution judges.

Besides, you seem to think everyone on the committee is self-serving. According to you all the lawyers are just there to either get picked as a judge later or to look out for their clients. Given your ideas about the committees, why do you think the police would be different?

I'm not the one trying to put convicted felons on judicial advisory committees. You're on your own there buddy.

Neither am I. I am pointing out the huge hole in your logic when you say that police should be on the committee just because they have an interest in who is a judge.

Because you don't seem to care who is on them as long as it isn't the police. See above.

Except I never said what you claimed I said. Nor am I simply anti-police, despite how you try to characterize my position.

You have?

Yes, and you have yet to respond with anything that shows this one in eight argument is relevant. I know you don't like to read the posts so I'll just quote it for you:

As for the one voice out of eight argument, would you allow an immediate family member of an accused person to sit on that accused person's jury? Of course not. It would be inappropriate. Even though they are just one voice out of twelve.

As a further example, you would not accept the argument that prisoners serving jail time should be on the committee and it would not matter because they would only be one voice out of nine. So why should we accept that police should be on the committee because they would only be one voice out of eight?

[bk59]

I am a big fan of fixed election dates but we are into new territory here.

This is not new territory. Harper passed this legislation in the current session of Parliament where he had a minority. Nothing has changed in the makeup of the Parliament since then.

It is hypocritical of any leader to criticize others for not sticking to that commitment if they are not prepared to do so themselves.

The only hypocritical position here is Harper's new position. He said he wanted fixed election dates and specifically said that elections could still happen if there was a vote of no confidence in the government. He left that option open to the opposition. That was in 2006. Now that position is inconvenient for him and so he is now saying that a minority government somehow changes things. It was a minority government in 2006, but he was all for fixed election dates then. But not in 2008. In 2006 he specifically said that the opposition could still vote no confidence, but now in 2008 that position has changed.

And that makes sense - when the prime minister can call elections at his discretion, because that is an unfair advantage.

The Prime Minister could call an election at his or her discretion whether it was a majority government or a minority government. If it is an unfair advantage, then it is an unfair advantage during both types of Parliaments.

But when the opposition can, in effect, call an election any time they want, then things are actually well-balanced in that regard. If we hold him to a set vote - but don't hold the opposition, then we're back to the unfairness again, only now from the other direction.

Having the entire opposition agree to vote no confidence versus the Prime Minister choosing to have an election is not exactly balanced. But even so, that is not the point. The point is that in 2006 Harper accepted fixed election dates in a minority government position and even allowed that no confidence votes would still trigger an election. Now, in 2008, he does not accept fixed election dates in a minority government. Nothing has changed with respect to no confidence votes.

Then call it politics, if you like, but I accept that things are different in a minority parliament.

It may be true that things are different in a minority Parliament. But that is not my problem with Harper's new position. My problem with his new position is that in his previous position he accepted that there was nothing different in a minority government that would prevent fixed election dates. All of a sudden, when it is convenient to do so, he flip flops his position.

[Wilber]

This is not new territory. Harper passed this legislation in the current session of Parliament where he had a minority. Nothing has changed in the makeup of the Parliament since then.

I take it then that you are against fixed election dates, so what are you complaining about?

The only hypocritical position here is Harper's new position. He said he wanted fixed election dates and specifically said that elections could still happen if there was a vote of no confidence in the government. He left that option open to the opposition. That was in 2006.

I agree that it was naive to give total control of the governments future to the opposition. He has obviously thought better of it.

The Prime Minister could call an election at his or her discretion whether it was a majority government or a minority government. If it is an unfair advantage, then it is an unfair advantage during both types of Parliaments.

Not so, with a majority only the PM has that discretion. In a minority situation both the opposition parties and the government have that option.

Having the entire opposition agree to vote no confidence versus the Prime Minister choosing to have an election is not exactly balanced.

You don't need the entire opposition, only one vote more than the government.

It may be true that things are different in a minority Parliament. But that is not my problem with Harper's new position. My problem with his new position is that in his previous position he accepted that there was nothing different in a minority government that would prevent fixed election dates. All of a sudden, when it is convenient to do so, he flip flops his position.

I don't know how many times Dosanjh has been asked by the local media why the Liberals haven't brought down the government. Each time he has answered, when they believe they can defeat the Conservatives in an election. Not once has he said anything about a fixed date. The Conservatives are just playing the same game.

Why are you so upset about the Conservatives holding to a fixed date when you have no intention of doing so yourselves?

[bk59]

I take it then that you are against fixed election dates, so what are you complaining about?

Nothing I have said is either for or against fixed election dates. I am pointing out Harper's convenient flip flop and why I find that disappointing.

I agree that it was naive to give total control of the governments future to the opposition. He has obviously thought better of it.

Oh, I see. He thought better of it. With all the posts on here about Liberals promising one thing before an election and doing something else after, I did not realize that this could all be justified by saying "they thought better of it".

This is a law that Harper passed two years ago. If he is thinking better of it then let him repeal the law. Otherwise his position is one of convenience, not a position of principle.

Not so, with a majority only the PM has that discretion. In a minority situation both the opposition parties and the government have that option.

The key there is opposition parties. Versus the Prime Minister. You will always need at least two parties to agree to bring down a minority government versus a Prime Minister who can always make that decision on his or her own. That is an advantage for the Prime Minister both in a majority and in a minority.

I don't know how many times Dosanjh has been asked by the local media why the Liberals haven't brought down the government. Each time he has answered, when they believe they can defeat the Conservatives in an election. Not once has he said anything about a fixed date. The Conservatives are just playing the same game.

This has nothing to do with any other person's, or party's, position. This is Harper reversing position when it is convenient for him to do so. He introduced fixed election dates knowing and admitting that a vote of no confidence could still cause an election. He still committed to a fixed election date. Except now he wants an election, so the fixed date goes out the window.

Why are you so upset about the Conservatives holding to a fixed date when you have no intention of doing so yourselves?

Me? This has nothing to do with me. I'm not a member of Parliament. More importantly, a vote of no confidence was always allowed even under the fixed election date legislation. Harper even said so in 2006. Except that now you want to use that as a justification for Harper's reversal. Sorry, but if it was fine for Harper in 2006 why is it not fine now? (The answer: political convenience.)

[DrGreenthumb]

I take it then that you are against fixed election dates, so what are you complaining about?

I agree that it was naive to give total control of the governments future to the opposition. He has obviously thought better of it.

Not so, with a majority only the PM has that discretion. In a minority situation both the opposition parties and the government have that option.

You don't need the entire opposition, only one vote more than the government.

I don't know how many times Dosanjh has been asked by the local media why the Liberals haven't brought down the government. Each time he has answered, when they believe they can defeat the Conservatives in an election. Not once has he said anything about a fixed date. The Conservatives are just playing the same game.

Why are you so upset about the Conservatives holding to a fixed date when you have no intention of doing so yourselves?

That is one of the stupidest arguments i've ever read in these forums and I've read the ones in support of pot prohibition!!

Of course the opposition is going to wait till they think they have the support of the electorate to bring down the government, what would be the point otherwise?? If they are going to turf the government that the people elected(even if the people picked one as crappy as the conservative party) They should only do so if they believe that the voters are pissed off enough at the government that they want them turfed. If the opposition doesn't feel that enough has changed since the last election for the voters to change the government, they should do their jobs and try to make things work. The voters have spoken. Harper should do the same Canadians gave him a minority and that is all he will ever be able to get. The fixed election dates is his own governments law and now he finds a "loophole" for himself, oooh surprise surprise. Justt like the conservative "loophole" they are claiming in the in, out scam. It really just means what we already know. The conservatives can make all the laws they want for other people, because they consider themselves "above the law". The rich always buy their way out of trouble, or have enough lawyers to basically find a way around it. Meanwhile the rest of us are expected to follow every law they set out for us. I guess when they make the rules for us Canadians they don't worry about it at all knowing the law doesn't really apply to all of us equally.

He wants to have an election before all the dirt comes out on his party. I really sincerely hope enough Canadians come to their senses and at the very least change parliament to a Liberal minority. Truth be told I'd far rather see Layton as prime minister, but i'll take Dion over Harper ANY day. Hell I'd take a daily kick in the balls over Harper as prime minister.