Why was Randy White missing?

[Hawk]

To say 'respect provincial jurisdiction' is doublespeak. Provincial jurisdiction is not under threat, so the implication that it needs protection is a coded message for something else.

Federal > Provincial, so gutting the Federal stranglehold is most certainly a good thing and DOES affect provincial jurisdiction.

To 'have an open debate on gay marriage and nothing else' is impossible.  The debate you want to have requires an unacceptable concession in another debate: whether we have a liberal democratic society, or something else.  To concede that we can have 'equal rights except for some' is not acceptable.

Close your discriminatory mouth, everyone else 'discriminates' except you. You just can't seem to understand that people who dont agree with you aren't being discriminatory we are having independant and free thoughts, a debate is exactly that. Denying us the freedom of open debate on such topics is extremely unacceptable, you can't tell us we aren't being democratic when you take away our right to disagree with homosexuality =p Otherwise using your mentality you better not disagree with poligamy or child molestation.

I was actually refering to other ways of undermining the court, but having judges to go before committees and looked at by the house before appointment raises the question of what it is they are being scrutinized for, exactly.  I see nothing that such scrutiny would do to improve the bench, based on the quality of the candidates we tend to get.

We tend to get because they were appointed by the corrupt Liberal government, that is not democratic, and it is blatantly dangerous and has been proven to not work (Fiberals pushing legislation through) its time they represented the people

[Michael Hardner]

Federal > Provincial, so gutting the Federal stranglehold is most certainly a good thing and DOES affect provincial jurisdiction.

Are you saying that the provinces need more power simply because they have less than the federal government does ?

How does that argument apply to cities under provinces ?

Once again, people are arguing that a certain political infrastructure is "fair" because it benefits their advancing point of view.

Close your discriminatory mouth, everyone else 'discriminates' except you. You just can't seem to understand that people who dont agree with you aren't being discriminatory we are having independant and free thoughts, a debate is exactly that. Denying us the freedom of open debate on such topics is extremely unacceptable, you can't tell us we aren't being democratic when you take away our right to disagree with homosexuality =p Otherwise using your mentality you better not disagree with poligamy or child molestation.

Please don't open up this debate in THIS thread too.

We tend to get because they were appointed by the corrupt Liberal government, that is not democratic, and it is blatantly dangerous and has been proven to not work (Fiberals pushing legislation through) its time they represented the people

It's not about representing the people, it's about power.

Pure proportional representation in parliament (something I oppose by the way) would certainly represent the people.

And.. it would result in a Liberal-NDP coalition almost every time. Would you be happy then, with the people all represented and so forth ?

[Remus]

Why is there a double standard in the media? Why is it when a Conservative mentions the notwithstanding clause the media horse whips them and when it is mentioned by Liberals it goes largely ignored? Even when the comment are made by Paul Martin appointed privy council member and M.P. Roger Gallaway.

Hon. Roger Gallaway:  I just want to make a comment in that regard. I've heard various colleagues use the term “the court will rule”, or “the court decision” in contemplation of the reference to the Supreme Court. I would point out to members that is incorrect. In fact, there is no court decision or ruling.

    Under section 56 of the Supreme Court Act, an opinion is sought from the Supreme Court that is non-binding on anyone, which therefore would contemplate that section 33 of the 1982 act could be invoked at any time by Parliament.

    So I think we should be careful when we start talking about a court ruling and a court decision, because none of that is going to happen.

read more here

ctv story

John McKay, a Toronto member of the caucus, said he wants to see the government keep marriage for heterosexuals and domestic unions for gays. He said he would consider supporting the use of the notwithstanding clause to get around an Ontario court decision that says not allowing gays and lesbians to get married is unconstitutional.

from globe and mail

[idealisttotheend]

Federal > Provincial, so gutting the Federal stranglehold is most certainly a good thing and DOES affect provincial jurisdiction

I.m sorry but Canada is almost the most decentalized country in the world. The Federal stranglehold simply does not exist over basically any area. Maybe the military but even foriegn policy is "encroached" upon by provinces that set up their own consulates. Remember how the provinces went to Britian to fight the 1982 Constitution? Provinces have juristiction over Health and Education which are by far the most important areas of government involvement. Even the enviroment is now partially under provincial control.

People who want to protect "provincial rights" are usually seperatists or isolationists from either Quebec or Alberta.

you can't tell us we aren't being democratic when you take away our right to disagree with homosexuality

Your right to disagree with homosexuality is not in doubt, it is your right to disagree with other consenting adults right to agree with homosexuality for themselves that is in question.

Otherwise using your mentality you better not disagree with poligamy or child molestation.

Child molestation is a criminal act and poligamy may well beup for discussion. Neither has anything to do with homosexual rights (though I do disagree with calling homosexual 'unions' marriages for purely traditional reasons).

We tend to get because they were appointed by the corrupt Liberal government, that is not democratic, and it is blatantly dangerous and has been proven to not work

Appointing judges is not undemocratic. It is the nature of the judiciary that it not be elected else we might as well just call the people who enforce the laws politicians like we call the people who make the laws. It is clearly not dangerous and I have yet to see an example of where a legitimate legal bias has been determined by congressional hearings in the US.

[idealisttotheend]

Why is there a double standard in the media? Why is it when a Conservative mentions the notwithstanding clause the media horse whips them and when it is mentioned by Liberals it goes largely ignored?

For the same reason that Romanow can tinker with health care in Saskatchewan without the media blowing a gasket and Klien can't do the same in Alberta. People trusted Romanow to tinker with health care and not gut the system over an ideological bias toward privatization. They did not trust Klien to do the same. With the use of S. 36 of the Charter, people trust that Martin would do so responsibly if at all, and not start using it left, right and centre to defend a party's ideological position vis a vie social conservatism. Many people don't trust Harper to do the same.

Rightly or wrongly I think that this is why these things happen this way. This is Canada, and we tend to trust middle of the roaders and distrust people who stray or are seen to be straying too far one way or the other.

[Michael Hardner]

This is Canada, and we tend to trust middle of the roaders and distrust people who stray or are seen to be straying too far one way or the other

I want to add a counter-example that might be relevant to today's election: Ontario experimented with some right-of-centre and left-of-centre governments in the 1990s. The political hang-over is still with us.

[Remus]

They did not trust Klien to do the same

Then why did Albertans give him over 60 percent of the vote if they don't trust him.

[Michael Hardner]

They did not trust Klien to do the same

Then why did Albertans give him over 60 percent of the vote if they don't trust him.

I think he means that Canadians generally didn't trust Klein to do the same.

[Hawk]

Are you saying that the provinces need more power simply because they have less than the federal government does ?

How does that argument apply to cities under provinces ?

Once again, people are arguing that a certain political infrastructure is "fair" because it benefits their advancing point of view.

Yes we do need more power, we dont want the Federal government controlling and centralizing everything. Cities are municiple, and the province should not have alot of power over city bylaws etc, you want me to go into a whole political platform or something?

Maybe the rest of Canada wants the powers that the Liberals keep giving Quebec? =p

Please don't open up this debate in THIS thread too.

Then please tell your co-Liberals to not bring it up (Sweal)

It's not about representing the people, it's about power. 

Pure proportional representation in parliament (something I oppose by the way) would certainly represent the people. 

Thats the problem, whatever government is in power has the last defence against corrupt legislature on their side, so they lose credibility and potency. They are merely puppets of the administration which I am ferociously against.

Its no surprise you vote Liberal, they dont like proportional representation either.. heck their own MPs aren't allowed to represent the people who vote them in

[idealisttotheend]

I want to add a counter-example that might be relevant to today's election: Ontario experimented with some right-of-centre and left-of-centre governments in the 1990s. The political hang-over is still with us.

I see your point MH but Rae (quite left wing) was elected while Mulroney (quite right wing) was in Ottawa and then Harris was elected both as an antidote to Rae and with CHretien in power in Ottawa. I would argue that balancing Toronto against Ottawa and then balancing one extreme with the other is a way to get to the middle of the road when the Ontario Liberals were particularily weak.

It is not the only possible explanation but it is one.

[Remus]

I think he means that Canadians generally didn't trust Klein to do the same.

Perhaps Canadian are to vulnerable to Liberal fear mongering and scapegoating. Maybe the Liberals should film a documentary of Klien Kong from the redneck, biblethumping, hinterland of Alberta climbing the C.N. tower holding documents threatening to bring American style healthcare to Canada. Hopefully Canadian's won't wet their pants.

For the same reason that Romanow can tinker with health care in Saskatchewan without the media blowing a gasket and Klien can't do the same in Alberta. People trusted Romanow to tinker with health care and not gut the system over an ideological bias toward privatization. They did not trust Klien to do the same.

Who destroyed more hospitals Klien Kong or Rowmanow.

[Hawk]

I.m sorry but Canada is almost the most decentalized country in the world.  The Federal stranglehold simply does not exist over basically any area.  Maybe the military but even foriegn policy is "encroached" upon by provinces that set up their own consulates.  Remember how the provinces went to Britian to fight the 1982 Constitution?  Provinces have juristiction over Health and Education which are by far the most important areas of government involvement.  Even the enviroment is now partially under provincial control.

People who want to protect "provincial rights" are usually seperatists or isolationists from either Quebec or Alberta. 

Decentralized? WHAT? Excuse me, our poor have welfare programs up the ying yang, we have free healthcare, public education, public buildings, we have government businesses and industries, we have privatized businesses being shut down more and more all the time I dont know what you are talking about =p

Your right to disagree with homosexuality is not in doubt, it is your right to disagree with other consenting adults right to agree with homosexuality for themselves that is in question. 

They can agree with it all they want, but demanding I conform to it and say it is all ok is against my rights. I dont agree with homosexuality, I never have, I dont believe they should be enroaching on our soceity and demanding 99% of Canada conform to their way of perverse thinking (yes thats right perverse, it isn't natural)

Maybe I should go out and start a pro-Straight parade, lets see how many lawsuits get thrown at me in this 'equal' system of ours.

Child molestation is a criminal act and poligamy may well beup for discussion.  Neither has anything to do with homosexual rights (though I do disagree with calling homosexual 'unions' marriages for purely traditional reasons).

Yes it does, because we are becoming more 'tolerant' of things that have traditionally been viewed as perverse and backwards. Poligamists are people too you know =p Child molesters too, what if the child consents? Child marriage happens in many cultures, does that make it right? Your problem is that your thinking exludes morality and the decision of right and wrong. Some things are right and some are wrong, justifying laws on emotions is a terribly dangerous thing to do, you can't trust emotions.

'they are people too' yeah well they are people who need help.

Appointing judges is not undemocratic.  It is the nature of the judiciary that it not be elected else we might as well just call the people who enforce the laws politicians like we call the people who make the laws.   It is clearly not dangerous and I have yet to see an example of where a legitimate legal bias has been determined by congressional hearings in the US.

I posted this previously and will repeat it here:

Thats the problem, whatever government is in power has the last defence against corrupt legislature on their side, so they lose credibility and potency. They are merely puppets of the administration which I am ferociously against.

[idealisttotheend]

Decentralized? WHAT? Excuse me, our poor have welfare programs up the ying yang, we have free healthcare, public education, public buildings, we have government businesses and industries, we have privatized businesses being shut down more and more all the time I dont know what you are talking about =p

Wonderful. However almost all the things you describe, (in fact all of them) are under provincial juristiction. Proving my point very nicely that there is no "federal stranglehold" as you put it.

Thats the problem, whatever government is in power has the last defence against corrupt legislature on their side, so they lose credibility and potency. They are merely puppets of the administration which I am ferociously against.

But then they really don't. There are still judges left over that were appointed by Mulroney, if the Cons win this election they will have to deal with judges left over from the Liberal regime. But really these judges are in no way beholden to the people who appointed them anyway. They are independant and can make any judgement they like without fear of reprucussions from the administration in question and are therefore not puppets.

[idealisttotheend]

Who destroyed more hospitals Klien Kong or Rowmanow.

I agree that some of Romanow's policies are very similar to Klien's, (but no private clinics or privatizition policies, just closing some rural hospitals and contracting out support services). That is just my point, people trusted Romanow to make decisions based on what he though best. People wondered if Klien was working for his financial backers and the ideologues in his own party. They still do wonder.

[Hawk]

Wonderful.  However almost all the things you describe, (in fact all of them) are under provincial juristiction.  Proving my point very nicely that there is no "federal stranglehold" as you put it. 

Yet the MPs are part of the Federal government and therefore through that the Federal government controls alot of the provincial way of things simply through their policies =p

But then they really don't.  There are still judges left over that were appointed by Mulroney, if the Cons win this election they will have to deal with judges left over from the Liberal regime.  But really these judges are in no way beholden to the people who appointed them anyway.  They are independant and can make any judgement they like without fear of reprucussions from the administration in question and are therefore not puppets.

Ever heard of money talks? Also you dont know if they made deals with the PM to get into office, there are too many loopholes and security issues. They aren't nearly as innocent as you seem to think they are, and the Liberals hold the majority of the judges which makes the situation all that much worse

[The Terrible Sweal]

You just can't seem to understand that people who dont agree with you aren't being discriminatory we are having independant and free thoughts, a debate is exactly that.

I find that appeal disingenuous. You cry that you only want to 'debate' something and not discriminate, but the objective of your position in the debate is precisely to discriminate.

Feel free to debate all you want, no-one is stopping you. But please don't try to evade the consequences of your position.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes we do need more power, we dont want the Federal government controlling and centralizing everything. Cities are municiple, and the province should not have alot of power over city bylaws etc, you want me to go into a whole political platform or something?

No. I just want to know why you think that. I guess the answer is "just because".

Ok.

Maybe the rest of Canada wants the powers that the Liberals keep giving Quebec? =p

The Liberals don't give Quebec more powers. They give them more money

Thats the problem, whatever government is in power has the last defence against corrupt legislature on their side, so they lose credibility and potency. They are merely puppets of the administration which I am ferociously against.

Well, even the CPC only allows free votes on issues that aren't part of party policy so the leader still ultimately has control.

Its no surprise you vote Liberal, they dont like proportional representation either.. heck their own MPs aren't allowed to represent the people who vote them in

I guess you missed my point.

Anyway, I haven't voted Liberal in 16 years so there you go...

[Remus]

I agree that some of Romanow's policies are very similar to Klien's, (but no private clinics or privatizition policies, just closing some rural hospitals and contracting out support services).  That is just my point, people trusted Romanow to make decisions based on what he though best.  People wondered if Klien was working for his financial backers and the ideologues in his own party.  They still do wonder.

My point is enough Albertans trusted Klien to give him 60% of the vote. In Romanow's last election Romanow lost the popular vote. More people in Saskatchewan trusted the Saskatchewan party than Romanow. That is if one can equate votes to trust.

on another note

I.m sorry but Canada is almost the most decentalized country in the world.  The Federal stranglehold simply does not exist over basically any area.  Maybe the military but even foriegn policy is "encroached" upon by provinces that set up their own consulates.  Remember how the provinces went to Britian to fight the 1982 Constitution?  Provinces have juristiction over Health and Education which are by far the most important areas of government involvement.  Even the enviroment is now partially under provincial control.

People who want to protect "provincial rights" are usually seperatists or isolationists from either Quebec or Alberta. 

Switzerland the oldest democracy on the planet is highly decentralized. Even with two languages they have managed to stick together for 500 years.

[Argus]

To 'have an open debate on gay marriage and nothing else' is impossible.  The debate you want to have requires an unacceptable concession in another debate: whether we have a liberal democratic society, or something else.  To concede that we can have 'equal rights except for some' is not acceptable.

It seems to be acceptable to the French, and the British, and the Swedes, the Danes, the Fins, the Russians, The Japanese, Chinese, Austrians, Italians, Australians, Italians, Greeks, Turks, Israelis, Portugese, Spanish, Germans, Swiss, Hungarians, Irish, Mexicans, Bulgarians, Jamaicans, Indonesians, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

I was actually refering to other ways of undermining the court, but having judges to go before committees and looked at by the house before appointment raises the question of what it is they are being scrutinized for, exactly.  I see nothing that such scrutiny would do to improve the bench, based on the quality of the candidates we tend to get.

Paul Cosgrove? How did this utter idiot ever get a judgeship? Oh, because he was a failed politician and they gave it to him as a patronage appointment.

I feel judicial appointments should be made by a non-partisan panel based on the potential judges' records as lawyers, the records of their written submissions, the astuteness of their arguments, their acknowledged judgement and intelligence. Likewise, promotions upwards to higher levels of the judiciary should be based on how sound and thoughtful and intelligent is the record of their decisions on the bench.

Not on who owes them a favour.

I don't think that would be an improper interference with the judiciary.

I also think judges should interpret laws, not make them, not read things into them which weren't intended. If they want to make laws they can run for office.