Opposition To Vote Against Human Smuggling Bill

[Argus]

I'm at a loss here. Do the Liberals oppose the legislation because they are against it or do they oppose it because they think it violates the charter?

They opposed it for fear it might cost them votes among ethnics, and donations and support from the immigration industry.

[Argus]

Not sure what you mean. Thinking that a proposed piece of legislation violates the Charter is a good reason to be against it, surely.

Surely you don't buy that excuse? Do you honestly think the Tories would put a bill in place, one drawn up by the Justice Department lawyers, which they knew was unconstitutional? What would be the point?

The only way you are going to put an end to the mass of phoney refugees that come to Canada every year is to detain them on arrival and then send them back when its shown they are phoneys. Letting them come in and settle in on welfare for years at a time while you go through the charade of hearings, appearls, court challenges, more appeals, etc., is only an invitation to abuse.

It's possible the Supremes might have a problem with it, but then who can predict what they will say on anything? They're such an arbitrary bunch they could fall either way on any issue, depending on their mood that morning. Remember that the refugee system has been massively expensive mess for decades now entirely due to the meddling of the Supreme Court. It was the supremes who decided, contrary to the declared intents of the writers of the Constitution, that it applied instantly to anyone and everyone the moment they fell from the sky into Canadian airspace.

What ought to happen, and won't, because we haven't had a government with the balls to do so, is for them to pass legisation under the Notwithstanding clause, and give the Supremes the finger. No more multi years long multi million dollar appeals process for each and every phoney refugee and criminal.

[Evening Star]

Surely you don't buy that excuse? Do you honestly think the Tories would put a bill in place, one drawn up by the Justice Department lawyers, which they knew was unconstitutional? What would be the point?

Possible reasons:

- To make it look like they are being tough on crime and bait the Opposition into either a) opposing an idea that sounds good to the public (particularly the Con base), who are sick of hearing about queue-jumping phonies, or backing an unconstitutional bill. Classic wedge politics. Why do you only assume cynical ulterior motives on the part of the opposition parties?

- They just interpret the Charter differently.

- To force civil rights groups and immigration advocates into costly and time-consuming court cases

- Hubris

- To divert government resources into detention facilities and court cases as part of a 'starve the beast' economic agenda

I strongly disagree that any government should use the notwithstanding clause, especially for something like this.

[Evening Star]

Ugh. That's "...b ) backing..."

[nicky10013]

That's it? "All" their promises are just 4 of them??

Those are some pretty damn big promises. If you can just scoff them off, well, that's your business.

Right, I getchya, there is no difference between the BS tactics of the CPC or the LPC - and really, why should there? It's only "politics" after all. It all makes perfects sense now. And let's dare not show any spine because the CPC might - might! - start all these attack ads and well, you know, damned if the LPC could come up with any sort of coherent platform that could withstand the might of the potential CPC attack ads.

Nope, there is no difference between political tactics. The difference here is I can admit that and the righteousness of the right wing in all their dogma can't.

But better the devil you know than the devil you don't. Looks like another minority will be coming our way. And it won't be Liberal.

Anything can happen in an election. Assuming an outcome months before the writ will even be dropped is hubris of the worst kind. No one expected Harper to win the election in 2006 except Harper. Look how that turned out.

I'm not confused at all Nicky, I have close enough access to "government" to see how the CPC are transforming the bureaucracy with their "platform." Do you? Because if you did and were aware of the changes going on within the bureaucracy - the chief aparatus of party rule - I highly doubt you would have formed such a naive opinion.

So they campaigned on ignoring the bureaucracy? That's the change that's gone on behind the scenes. They just don't listen to anything other than the voices in their own head.

So you are an apologist after all? And use the CPC as a scapegoat for such apology? Well done!

Apparently you're incapable of complicated thought. I think what they're doing with the general platform is wrong, but they've been very clear where they've stood on the immigration issue. Spin that whichever way you want, but those things aren't mutually exclusive.

Whatever you smell, it likely isn't a pair of balls. All you are admitting here is that the LPC is just as bad as the CPC. And you know what? Tell Canadians something they didn't already know. Why do you think we have had two CPC minorities already? This is what I mean by the lack of leadership in the LPC. A situation that desperately calls for leadership and what do we get? An apology for being just as bad as the other guy. For shame!

Ahahahah for shame? Really? Tell me, what leadership are you so desperately seeking?

You've already proven to be an apologist there's only a very thin line between dogmatism now. The LPC needs a leader who can rise above the current lowest denominator and show Canadians a vision of their future that they want. Instead all the LPC apologists can do is point out how equally bad the leadership is. But Harper loves hockey, so the LPC lose again. Duh. But oh, hey, that's "politics."

So, what is taking a stand and leading and what is being an apologist? I'd like to hear it out of the horse's mouth. You say there's a very thin line between that and dogmatism. I say, those definitions can be changed for political expediency.

Why is it only now after Ignatieff takes a stand that precludes Ignatieff from leadership? Why is it that when people take the time to point out the double standard, they themselves are accused of putting that double standard in place?

I seem to recall that aat every step where the CPC has been accused of doing something wrong, there was always a press release ready to go saying how the LPC always did it under Chretien. Now I'm the apologist, I'm the one who thinks the parties are the same? Puh-lease. I merely pointed it out, now I'm being accused of it. How ludicrous.

Oh, it is very easy to understand since it is the exact same sentiment the CPC has responded with. How hard is that to understand?

But, they haven't. If they did, the bill wouldn't be what it is right now. Apparently for you it's hard to understand. Might want to actually get the handle on issues and concepts before you berate someone else's knowledge on it.

"It happens all the time" and the Liberals don't admit to it this time? God, the LPC is in far worse shape than I thought!

When have they ever admitted to it? In fact, what was the point of this part of the post?

Here's the truth Nicky: the piece was a "morality opinion from a political wag from MacLeans" and nothing more. As for non-partisan, well, I'll decide that, thanks.

Considering he accused the Liberals of being just as guilty, which I personally think is crap, yeah I would say it's non-partisan.

Furthermore, are you actually disputing the facts within the article? For someone who is so non-partisan, that's just hilarious.

All you are doing here is saying the Liberals are no different than the CPC. Oh, now that's news.

Tactics are a very small part of what a political party is. The fact that you can't understand that says it all. There are gigantic differences between the parties. If that wasn't the case they wouldn't hate each other so much.

You don't get that do you? All you are able to do is make comparisons that the Liberals are no worse than the CPC and then somehow think this is a good thing. If you want to see a crystal clear example of what is acutely wrong with the Liberals today, go look in the mirror.

Point out where saying some of the things the parties do are similar makes them exactly the same? Furthermore, how can I be the one with the double standards. If the parties are really exactly the same as you're asserting here, why is it that you vote for Harper instead?

With the exception that Harper has a genuine love of hockey and his life experience is rooted right here in Canada. And oh, he has been Prime Minister before.

AHahahahahahahahahahahaha. With "For Shame" I knew it was getting silly. Now this? What a fucking joke.

[Wilber]

OK....except that the Charter does exist. If you believe that members of the Commons should do something that they believe to be in violation of Canada's Constitution, then I guess you shouldn't hide behind some kind of fake choice that you're giving the Liberals. If they really believe that the legislation violates the Charter, then I would be (and you should be, quite frankly) appalled if they would vote in favour of the legislation. Constitutions exist for a reason.

It's not up to Parliament to decide what is in violation of the Charter or interpret the Constitution, that's the court's job. That's why we have a Charter and a Constitution. They are using this as an excuse not to take a position on an issue.

[Smallc]

It's not up to Parliament to decide what is in violation of the Charter or interpret the Constitution, that's the court's job. That's why we have a Charter and a Constitution. They are using this as an excuse not to take a position on an issue.

No, I'm afraid your wrong. Parliament (and the House of Commons within it) should not be voting in favour of legislation which has a strong possibility of violating the Charter or any part of the Constitution of Canada; the very Constitution that grants them the power to pass laws.

[Wilber]

No, I'm afraid your wrong. Parliament (and the House of Commons within it) should not be voting in favour of legislation which has a strong possibility of violating the Charter or any part of the Constitution of Canada; the very Constitution that grants them the power to pass laws.

Obviously the government doesn't agree and I don't think they would present legislation they thought would be overturned. Let the proper arbiter decide which is the court. The only way that can happen is if the legislation is passed and then challenged. Until then this is nothing more than political bullshit designed to avoid an issue. The Liberals don't want to do anything and this is their way of not doing it.

[Smallc]

Obviously the government doesn't agree and I don't think they would present legislation they thought would be overturned. Let the proper arbiter decide which is the court. The only way that can happen is if the legislation is passed and then challenged. Until then this is nothing more than political bullshit designed to avoid an issue. The Liberals don't want to do anything and this is their way of not doing it.

I see, this is Liberal bullshit, but the Conservatives are doing wonderful things, and given their history, no one would ever believe they'd try to bend Constitutional rules..... In case you didn't know, Parliament has a duty to uphold certain things, including the Constitution of Canada. The House of Commons is not the entirety of Parliament (there are 3 parts) and the Conservatives do not control the house and only currently control 1 part of Parliament. They aren't the deciders of what is right, of what gets passed, or of what should get passed, and they certainly don't have a good track record when it comes to bending long held constitutional rules and conventions to suit their needs. If the Conservatives want to proceed, and they really think that the proposed laws do not violate the Charter, then they now need to refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada. It's much better to find out in advance of the passage of a law.

Edited December 6, 2010 by Smallc

[Shwa]

Those are some pretty damn big promises. If you can just scoff them off, well, that's your business.

What I scoff at is your partisan hyperbole that serves nothing, but your own petty interests.

Nope, there is no difference between political tactics. The difference here is I can admit that and the righteousness of the right wing in all their dogma can't.

Who gives a crap what the "right wing in all their dogma can't" admit they are as bad as the Liberals? You admit your stink, but do nothing to clean yourself up. Good for you.

Anything can happen in an election. Assuming an outcome months before the writ will even be dropped is hubris of the worst kind. No one expected Harper to win the election in 2006 except Harper. Look how that turned out.

Yeah, he predicted he would win. He seems to have a better grasp on it that Ingatieff. No wonder.

So they campaigned on ignoring the bureaucracy? That's the change that's gone on behind the scenes. They just don't listen to anything other than the voices in their own head.

So you don't understand how government works?

Apparently you're incapable of complicated thought.

Funny, I was thinking your were incapable of simple thought.

I think what they're doing with the general platform is wrong, but they've been very clear where they've stood on the immigration issue. Spin that whichever way you want, but those things aren't mutually exclusive.

They are the government, they were elected to form the government. The LPC don't even have the balls to form a coalition, nevermind their whining about "procedure."

Ahahahah for shame? Really? Tell me, what leadership are you so desperately seeking?

Are you kidding me?? Have you been following along or are you just spinning away in your little idealogue tornado? Think for a minute, you admit the LCP is just as bad as the CPC. No kidding. Don't you think practically every other rational Canadian can see that as well? Why bother with change when it isn't offered? And the CPC government is working out OK, why not keep them in since the alternative is just as bad as they themselves admit?

So, what is taking a stand and leading and what is being an apologist? I'd like to hear it out of the horse's mouth. You say there's a very thin line between that and dogmatism. I say, those definitions can be changed for political expediency.

Taking a stand and leading what exactly? The race for number two? Again?

Why is it only now after Ignatieff takes a stand that precludes Ignatieff from leadership? Why is it that when people take the time to point out the double standard, they themselves are accused of putting that double standard in place?

Because that's politics toots. And if you are incapabe of raising the bar - and be seen doing it - then there is no leadership and there never was.

I seem to recall that aat every step where the CPC has been accused of doing something wrong, there was always a press release ready to go saying how the LPC always did it under Chretien. Now I'm the apologist, I'm the one who thinks the parties are the same? Puh-lease. I merely pointed it out, now I'm being accused of it. How ludicrous.

No, you admit the politic tactics are the same - the same lying, the same bullshit, the same disingenuous spin, the same manipulative crap - that lost the last two elections for the LPC - and you are expecting some sort of sympathy? Puh-lease.

But, they haven't. If they did, the bill wouldn't be what it is right now. Apparently for you it's hard to understand. Might want to actually get the handle on issues and concepts before you berate someone else's knowledge on it.

Liberals To Kill Tories' Controversial Human Smuggling Bill

But Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said "there's a lot of fear-mongering and alarmism about aspects of the bill." He insisted it does not violate the charter and called it a "strong but balanced effort to crack down on human smuggling and queue-jumping."

Kenney said the three opposition parties are thumbing their noses at Canadians, who are "overwhelmingly" fed up with criminal smuggling operations treating Canada "like a doormat." He urged them to at least let the bill go to committee, where opposition MPs could propose amendments.

But Ignatieff said there's no point.

"We just don't think this is salvageable and we take this decision with regret," he said.

So do nothing. Hope for an election. In the meantime Canada has no response to human smuggling. Excellent "leadership."

When have they ever admitted to it? In fact, what was the point of this part of the post?

Let me refresh your memory from yesterday:

No, what I'm saying is that the Conservatives only ever work with the Liberals when they're in trouble. Why in god's name would the CPC even think to cooperate? How do you know the Liberals didn't reach out and say we can work with you on this if you drop this certain provision? To me, that makes the most sense since the bill actually did pass first reading. Just because it isn't made public doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It happens all the time.

Now take a look at the quotes from the news story above. Even YOU think it makes sense to revise and work on the Bill and I think that is a sensible course of action. But the so-called "leadership" of the LPC has something else in mind and it certainly doesn't appear to have anything to do with a Canadian response to human smuggling. Well, that's politics for ya!

Considering he accused the Liberals of being just as guilty, which I personally think is crap, yeah I would say it's non-partisan.

But you are partisan and an apologist, so you would see it as crap. Even though you admit that working on this Bill is a good idea. Obviously you didn't get the message right away.

Furthermore, are you actually disputing the facts within the article? For someone who is so non-partisan, that's just hilarious.

I am not "disputing the facts" I am saying they are irrelevant. As in, who cares?

Tactics are a very small part of what a political party is. The fact that you can't understand that says it all. There are gigantic differences between the parties. If that wasn't the case they wouldn't hate each other so much.

Point out where saying some of the things the parties do are similar makes them exactly the same? Furthermore, how can I be the one with the double standards. If the parties are really exactly the same as you're asserting here, why is it that you vote for Harper instead?

Oh good God - are you daft? Are you having trouble following along or keeping up there Nicky?

AHahahahahahahahahahahaha. With "For Shame" I knew it was getting silly. Now this? What a fucking joke.

If you are describing the current state of the LPC leadership then I approve this message.

[Evening Star]

Well spoken, Smallc. It surprises me that people are so willing to believe that the Conservatives would never try to bend the Constitution or Charter to get what they want but also ready to believe that the Liberals would make up some bullshit about the Charter in order to block a bill.

[Wilber]

Well spoken, Smallc. It surprises me that people are so willing to believe that the Conservatives would never try to bend the Constitution or Charter to get what they want but also ready to believe that the Liberals would make up some bullshit about the Charter in order to block a bill.

It surprises me that people are so willing to believe the Liberals would never try to hide behind the Constitution or the Charter to avoid taking a stand on an issue that might expose what they really believe. It also surprises me that anyone would believe that any political party would be above making up some bullshit about the Charter in order to block a bill. Instead of comming up with some solution of their own to this problem they hide behind the Charter. The obvious conclusion is they are quite satisfied with the status quo. If so why don't they have the balls to say so?

Edited December 6, 2010 by Wilber

[Smallc]

The obvious conclusion is they are quite satisfied with the status quo. If so why don't they have the balls to say so?

The other conclusion (just as obvious, especially given the history of this Conservative government when it comes to lying about the Constitution), is that the Liberals aren't lying and sincerely believe that this is a Charter issue. That isn't hiding behind the Charter. You seem to be implying that the Liberals are in favour of human smuggling, which is about as preposterous as your other idea relating to Parliament's ability to pass unconstitutional legislation.

Edited December 6, 2010 by Smallc

[Jack Weber]

It surprises me that people are so willing to believe the Liberals would never try to hide behind the Constitution or the Charter to avoid taking a stand on an issue that might expose what they really believe. It also surprises me that anyone would believe that any political party would be above making up some bullshit about the Charter in order to block a bill. Instead of comming up with some solution of their own to this problem they hide behind the Charter. The obvious conclusion is they are quite satisfied with the status quo. If so why don't they have the balls to say so?

I agree...

Mr.Harper has engineered not one,but two,Prorogments...

Based solely on self-important,self-serving BS...

Edited December 6, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Wilber]

The other conclusion (just as obvious, especially given the history of this Conservative government when it comes to lying about the Constitution), is that the Liberals aren't lying and sincerely believe that this is a Charter issue. That isn't hiding behind the Charter. You seem to be implying that the Liberals are in favour of human smuggling, which is about as preposterous as your other idea relating to Parliament's ability to pass unconstitutional legislation.

If they keep hiding behind the Charter I have no idea what they believe in or what they are in favour of. That is the point I am trying to make. Nowhere has it been established that this legislation is unconstitutional, that is just the Liberal's position.

[Smallc]

If they keep hiding behind the Charter I have no idea what they believe in or what they are in favour of. That is the point I am trying to make. Nowhere has it been established that this legislation is unconstitutional, that is just the Liberal's position.

No one is hiding behind anything. The Liberals don't think that the bill is constitutional. It doesn't matter what else they think if they believe that's the case. If it is, then sending it to the Supreme Court from a reference shouldn't be a problem, now should it?

[Wilber]

No one is hiding behind anything. The Liberals don't think that the bill is constitutional. It doesn't matter what else they think if they believe that's the case. If it is, then sending it to the Supreme Court from a reference shouldn't be a problem, now should it?

Can they do that without actually challenging legislation? If they can, they should. Do you really think what they believe doesn't matter?

[Smallc]

Can they do that without actually challenging legislation? If they can, they should. Do you really think what they believe doesn't matter?

Do you think that the Liberals actually are in favour of human trafficking? If you do..... :blink If you don't, then I'm not sure what you're going on about. The Government of Canada is the one that has to send the legislation to the court...and then they have to wait.

[Wilber]

Do you think that the Liberals actually are in favour of human trafficking? If you do..... :blink If you don't, then I'm not sure what you're going on about. The Government of Canada is the one that has to send the legislation to the court...and then they have to wait.

Courts don't rule on laws that don't exist. I have no idea what the Liberals are in favour of. Trying to find out is like wrestling with an eel. That is what I am going on about.

[Smallc]

Courts don't rule on laws that don't exist.

The Supreme Court thus performs a unique function. It can be asked by the Governor-in-Council to hear references considering important questions of law. Such referrals may concern the constitutionality or interpretation of federal or provincial legislation, or the division of powers between federal and provincial levels of government. Any point of law may be referred in this manner. However, the court is not often called upon to hear references. When it is, the opinion on the question referred is often of national importance; one recent example concerns the constitutionality of Same-sex marriage. References have been used to re-examine criminal convictions that have concerned the country as in the cases of David Milgaard and Steven Truscott.

Source: Wikipedia

If you put the theoretical legislation to them, they'll test it. This should be broadly known stuff.

[Wilber]

Source: Wikipedia

If you put the theoretical legislation to them, they'll test it. This should be broadly known stuff.

The they should do that but I still don't know what the Liberals stand for.

[Smallc]

The they should do that but I still don't know what the Liberals stand for.

The fact that the Liberals are setting themselves up as supporters of the Charter is far more important than a single issue.

[Wilber]

The fact that the Liberals are setting themselves up as supporters of the Charter is far more important than a single issue.

We don't agree on that as it will be the courts who will be the ultimate arbiters on the Charter regardless of what the Liberals support. They are just using the Charter to avoid having presenting their own policy on this issue. It is the opposition's primary job to provide alternatives to proposed legislation, not protect the Charter. If it was solely up to Parliament to protect the Charter, the thing would be useless.

[Smallc]

It is the opposition's primary job to provide alternatives to proposed legislation, not protect the Charter.

This is one of the most preposterous things I've ever read. Are you saying that the opposition should ignore the Constitution, and leave it all for the courts to sort our?

If it was solely up to Parliament to protect the Charter, the thing would be useless.

No one said that it was only up to Parliament. They simply can't ignore the Charter or any part of the Constitution. If they do, it's bad for everyone involved.

[Wilber]

This is one of the most preposterous things I've ever read. Are you saying that the opposition should ignore the Constitution, and leave it all for the courts to sort our?

I'm saying that it is the opposition's job to provide alternatives to proposed legislation. They could use the Charter as an excuse to oppose any legislation because until it was tested in court, no one would know who was right. How convenient.