Conservatives...

[shimmydampner]

He said on national telivision that he will abolish the notwithstanding clause.
Also I would like to see the quote where Stephen Harper said he would use it to remove the rights of gays to marry.

Well, I must have missed his quote on saying that he would abolish it, because all I've heard is him saying he would work towards making sure it could only be used to enshrine rights.

http://kellyharmsworth.com

there ya go I showed where he said it. now show me where harper said he would use it to not allow gays to marry.

Once again, you're either not reading the entire post or you're choosing to ignore large parts of it. Take a deep breath, calm yourself down and re-read my last post. I think you'll find exactly what you're looking for there.

[CID]

All Harper is saying is he want's to define marriage in the traditional sence. How is this a violation of the charter?

He has to work within the law like everyone else. So let's see if he can pull it off without using the not-withstanding clause.

[LH]

Dust Devil ------my point to you was that there has to be a law, document or whatever, called a Constitution, Bill of Rights or whatever you choose to call it, that is a place "where the buck stops".......and that's the end of it.

The way the Bill of Rights in Canada is set up, it may say one thing and if some province doesn't agree with it, they say they won't obey it and just use the "notwithstanding" clause to countermand it. How do you run a business, a military or a collection of anything with people in it, when anyone or organization that doesn't agree with just says, "sorry, but we don't agree and screw you". No wonder we have problems when the Bill of Rights for ALL Canadians can state one thing and the government of Quebec or Alberta for example, can say "we don't agree and we're going our own way". That makes the Bill of Rights an "Act of Convenience" that will be obeyed when someone agrees with it. My Rights aren't protected if the government of my province can say "sorry, we know what the Bill of Rights states, but we don't agree, are using the notwithstanding clause to make that decision legal and you'll answer to our law and NOT Ottawa's".

[Dust Devil]

Once again, you're either not reading the entire post or you're choosing to ignore large parts of it. Take a deep breath, calm yourself down and re-read my last post. I think you'll find exactly what you're looking for there.

How can he use it to enshrine rights when "through constitutional means" he removes the ability for the federal government to use it? What happens when churches are forced by the courts to perform ceremonies that they don't agree with? Where is the ability to protect the religious rights of the churches?

I can't belive people would want our political system changed to a system that removes our elected officials and put appointed people in charge of national policy.

[LH]

Dust Devil ----careful where you go with that last question because we APPOINT our Judges and we APPOINT our Senators and they all have some input into "national policy".

The only time that Ottawa will be concerned about what we "WANT" is on Election Day and that lasts just 12 hours........12 1/2 if you're in Newfoundland.

[Dust Devil]

Dust Devil ----careful where you go with that last question because we APPOINT our Judges and we APPOINT our Senators and they all have some input into "national policy".

And I don't agree with them being appointed. I belive in an elected senate and especially if the notwithstanding clause is removed then I belive we should elect our judges. All officials should be accountable to the people. That is what a democracy is all about.

So I'm not sure what you think I need to be careful about?

[cyyz]

Dust Devil ----careful where you go with that last question because we APPOINT our Judges and we APPOINT our Senators and they all have some input into "national policy".

And I don't agree with them being appointed. I belive in an elected senate and especially if the notwithstanding clause is removed then I belive we should elect our judges. All officials should be accountable to the people. That is what a democracy is all about.

So I'm not sure what you think I need to be careful about?

[Dust Devil]

Dust Devil ----careful where you go with that last question because we APPOINT our Judges and we APPOINT our Senators and they all have some input into "national policy".

And I don't agree with them being appointed. I belive in an elected senate and especially if the notwithstanding clause is removed then I belive we should elect our judges. All officials should be accountable to the people. That is what a democracy is all about.

So I'm not sure what you think I need to be careful about?

What is that about?

[cyyz]

That's Judge Judy.. You can elect her to be our next Judge...

[Dust Devil]

That's Judge Judy.. You can elect her to be our next Judge...

If that's what the people want then why shouldn't they?

[CID]

If that's what the people want then why shouldn't they?

Because the public in general is more impressed with a nice smile than good policy. The public in general is not qualified to make a good choice for a judge. This idea of pure democracy doesn't work and that's why most countries don't work that way.

Voters don't often use guiding principals like those contained in the constitution when voting for their MP. This is clearly indicated by the way polls are affected by TV debates. It is obvious that many Canadians aren't even aware of the issues before they watch the debates. They treat them like a hockey game and declare a winner by how much blood they draw from the others.

[Brewguy]

That's Judge Judy.. You can elect her to be our next Judge...

If that's what the people want then why shouldn't they?

In theory, an appointed judiciary and upper house (Senate), should be a far superior practice to "elected everything". They are intended to provide some level of consistency and stability. Why? Because elected governments change with the whims of the sheep (oops, I mean general public). This is fine, it is what we have in the provincial legislatures and house of commons - the places where our laws originate, and where most of our governing is done.

Public opinion is subject to high emotions at times. One government will do something, spend a crap load of public money on it, and then another government will come to power and change it. (Helicopters for the CF, Photo Radar in Ontario, etc. etc.).

Lets discuss the Senate: An appointed Senate is intended to prevent any bill that is not in the best interest of Canada or Canadians from being passed, especially if it is something that is being fueled by highly emotional public opinion. Sort of like the advice of counting to 10 before speaking when you're mad. This is what should provide consistency. New bills should come from the Commons, the Senate should only be there to say either "that's good work, and worthy of being accepted", or "sorry guys and gals, not good enough. try again".

Again, technically speaking, if there are a total of "x" numbers of positions in an appointed body (say 9 Justices on the Supreme Court); these positions will only become available occasionally, and a few at a time. This prevents the whole institution from being replaced en masse - and that is what is supposed to provide the level of stability. It also allows people in those positions to make unpopular decisions (again, in the best interest of Canada and Canadians) without fear of loosing their position during the next election. Example: Parents make children eat their vegetables because it's what's best for them; They don't worry about the children then electing different parents who promise nothing but candy.

Now, as I said this is how it's supposed to work in theory. In practice? Well, far too many positions of power in this country are appointed directly by the Prime Minister's Office. Also, in the Senate at least, there seems to be no requirement for them to actually show up and do work.

Is reform needed? Absolutly!
Should we move to the US system of all positions being elected? I would have some concerns about that. I think our appointment process can be reworked to keep some of it's benefits, while limiting the current (and ethically corrupt) practice of patronage.

Exactly how? I'm not sure. But I can tell you one thing, the Senate should be full of notable, ferverently patriotic Canadians from all walks of life. Our best elder statesmen, business leaders, sports icons, authors, poets, scientists, astronauts etc. People who care about Canada above politics.

[CID]

Because elected governments change with the whims of the sheep (oops, I mean general public).

Excellent observation.

[just another pilot]

The idea of appointing judges was to free them from potential corruption - like the United States. However, elected Senators and Cabinet would be a real check and balance to an over powered Prime Minister.

[cyyz]

The idea of appointing judges was to free them from potential corruption - like the United States. However, elected Senators and Cabinet would be a real check and balance to an over powered Prime Minister.

So you mean we wouldn't have bleeding heart judges if we elected them? No you lie..

I think electing them would show criminals who's in power finally...

[LH]

Dust Devil -------I was being facetious......you're doing just fine.....keep those thoughts. We agree totally.



Comments have been made here that the Canadian Senate is in place to be a "counter-check" against the House of Commons and opinion is that they can prevent any piece of legislation from passing and becoming fact. This is not true. The Senate can hold-up a bill and express disapproval for THREE readings, but ultimately, if the House of Commons wants that Bill passed after THREE readings, then it passes and "the buck stops" THERE. The Senate in Canada has very little power to speak of at all. It is a place for the present government in power to "appoint' and reward Party members/backers for service extended to the Party FIRST and the country SECOND. The appointments are usually made enmasse in the lst days of the present government's power AND are the SOLE DOMAIN of the out-going PMO.

Anybody sitting in that institution, who has ANYTHING remotely to do with governing you and I, should be elected because I don't want anyone representing me if I had no choice in who that would be. I admit that we should have all manner of people, from all backgrounds in the House AND the Senate, BUT I want ALL of the members of both Houses to be ELECTED and not appointed because they worked hard for their Party over the last 25 years. That's nice, but give them other awards for doing so. I am old enough to have been a very big fan of Frank Mahovolich of the Toronto Maple Leafs, BUT he deserves to be "appointed" to no seat in my Senate based on that fact and in a position to govern me. Let him run for Office, be elected by those he represents and then he has now earned it.......and good luck to 'ol Frankie boy. Ditto for the "Red" Kelly's of the hockey world.

I consider and have always considered that idea that the average Canadian voter is not the "sharpest knife in the drawer" as being arrogant and a typically British-based attitude passed-on to us from that society that STILL functions on a "Class Basis". It is "excess-baggage" that we acquired when we set ourselves up in the British Parliamentary system. When are we going to "cut the strings" and stand on our own two feet? Ditch the British "attitudes' about the common man and realize that the AVERAGE Canadian of today is way more sophisticated, more intelligent and better educated than they were in 1950, 1906, 1867 or the Britain of the 1700's. I don't appreciate at all having ANYONE "talk down" to myself and my peers in that manner because one of my peers IS an MP and has been so for over 20 years. He is not the smartest one of my peers by any means, but is not stupid either. So let's "ditch" that idea forever, that the average Canadian is of average intelligence, but still "unknowing" and that all of those representing them in the halls of power are close to or actual members of the Mensa Society. They are no more than those WE CHOSE, who are sent to halls of power to represent OUR wishes because WE can't get 32M people into the House of Commons or a provincial population into the Legislatures or a city population into Council Chambers at City Hall.

Appointed judiciary? There's two choices here..... Appointed or elected. YOU have NO say in who gets appointed and YOU TRUST that that person doing the appointing will make the right decision for the right reasons. You also understand fully that YOU cannot fire or dismiss this person from office and have no LEGAL control method to do so. You again TRUST "the system" to do the correct thing when it needs to be done and also hope that 'the system" will agree with you WHEN it needs to be done. You can also elect that same judiciary and have ultimate control over all the items mentioned in the foregoing. Corruption? You can have and have had corruption in BOTH systems on BOTH sides of the border, so fact and legal history on both sides makes that a "moot point".......and unltimately a "red herring'. Neither system will prevent corruption and I'll argue that one isn't better at it than the other also. It's a matter of personal decision and who you TRUST.

I have no problem with the word "Appointment". I DO have a problem with WHO is making those appointments and WHY and therein lies my concern. IF somebody....anybody....has control over governing me or making laws that effect my daily life and that of my family and peers, THEN I want that person to be elected by me and/or I want to have some control and say in WHO that is, how long they will hold that position and if they fail in their duties, I want to have some power to remove them from that Office. We, as Canadians, are not quite ready for that system yet because we basically still TRUST those elected or appointed to govern over us. That has diminished greatly during my lifetime and will continue further, but UNTIL that day arrives, ANYTHING that even "smells of something American" will be given the boot by most for a multitude of reasons. We don't have the ability or mindset yet to be able yet to make a "Made in Canada" system and either look at the British system or American systems ONLY for ideas. It will come and we will definitely do it someday, but Canadians often forget how young we are a nation and how much more growing-up we have to do yet. It contributes to our "anti-Americanism" and we are still attached to ANYTHING with the word "Royal" in front of it. The thought of eliminating the word "Royal" from ANYTHING that has it at present in Canada appalls many Canadians and many consider it to be the same as showing total disrespect and rudeness towards a parent or grandparent. We'll get over it......give us time......but in the meantime, drop the national "inferiority complex" regarding ANY OTHER country or peoples. Just because those south of us speak English, have a Democracy and the same "Motherland" doesn't mean that we always have to look in that direction. Ditto for England also because I personally apprecaite their contribution to my nation, my laws and my history, but it now time to move-on, stand tall and be the separate entity and nation that we proclaim to be. I did exactly the same thing when I left my parents home and began my own. At that point I also changed from being a "Master" to a "Mister" and was accorded all the duties and responsibilities that went with that change and being an adult.

[Dust Devil]

Dust Devil -------I was being facetious......you're doing just fine.....keep those thoughts. We agree totally.



Comments have been made here that the Canadian Senate is in place to be a "counter-check" against the House of Commons and opinion is that they can prevent any piece of legislation from passing and becoming fact. This is not true. The Senate can hold-up a bill and express disapproval for THREE readings, but ultimately, if the House of Commons wants that Bill passed after THREE readings, then it passes and "the buck stops" THERE. The Senate in Canada has very little power to speak of at all. It is a place for the present government in power to "appoint' and reward Party members/backers for service extended to the Party FIRST and the country SECOND. The appointments are usually made enmasse in the lst days of the present government's power AND are the SOLE DOMAIN of the out-going PMO.

Anybody sitting in that institution, who has ANYTHING remotely to do with governing you and I, should be elected because I don't want anyone representing me if I had no choice in who that would be. I admit that we should have all manner of people, from all backgrounds in the House AND the Senate, BUT I want ALL of the members of both Houses to be ELECTED and not appointed because they worked hard for their Party over the last 25 years. That's nice, but give them other awards for doing so. I am old enough to have been a very big fan of Frank Mahovolich of the Toronto Maple Leafs, BUT he deserves to be "appointed" to no seat in my Senate based on that fact and in a position to govern me. Let him run for Office, be elected by those he represents and then he has now earned it.......and good luck to 'ol Frankie boy. Ditto for the "Red" Kelly's of the hockey world.

I consider and have always considered that idea that the average Canadian voter is not the "sharpest knife in the drawer" as being arrogant and a typically British-based attitude passed-on to us from that society that STILL functions on a "Class Basis". It is "excess-baggage" that we acquired when we set ourselves up in the British Parliamentary system. When are we going to "cut the strings" and stand on our own two feet? Ditch the British "attitudes' about the common man and realize that the AVERAGE Canadian of today is way more sophisticated, more intelligent and better educated than they were in 1950, 1906, 1867 or the Britain of the 1700's. I don't appreciate at all having ANYONE "talk down" to myself and my peers in that manner because one of my peers IS an MP and has been so for over 20 years. He is not the smartest one of my peers by any means, but is not stupid either. So let's "ditch" that idea forever, that the average Canadian is of average intelligence, but still "unknowing" and that all of those representing them in the halls of power are close to or actual members of the Mensa Society. They are no more than those WE CHOSE, who are sent to halls of power to represent OUR wishes because WE can't get 32M people into the House of Commons or a provincial population into the Legislatures or a city population into Council Chambers at City Hall.

Appointed judiciary? There's two choices here..... Appointed or elected. YOU have NO say in who gets appointed and YOU TRUST that that person doing the appointing will make the right decision for the right reasons. You also understand fully that YOU cannot fire or dismiss this person from office and have no LEGAL control method to do so. You again TRUST "the system" to do the correct thing when it needs to be done and also hope that 'the system" will agree with you WHEN it needs to be done. You can also elect that same judiciary and have ultimate control over all the items mentioned in the foregoing. Corruption? You can have and have had corruption in BOTH systems on BOTH sides of the border, so fact and legal history on both sides makes that a "moot point".......and unltimately a "red herring'. Neither system will prevent corruption and I'll argue that one isn't better at it than the other also. It's a matter of personal decision and who you TRUST.

I have no problem with the word "Appointment". I DO have a problem with WHO is making those appointments and WHY and therein lies my concern. IF somebody....anybody....has control over governing me or making laws that effect my daily life and that of my family and peers, THEN I want that person to be elected by me and/or I want to have some control and say in WHO that is, how long they will hold that position and if they fail in their duties, I want to have some power to remove them from that Office. We, as Canadians, are not quite ready for that system yet because we basically still TRUST those elected or appointed to govern over us. That has diminished greatly during my lifetime and will continue further, but UNTIL that day arrives, ANYTHING that even "smells of something American" will be given the boot by most for a multitude of reasons. We don't have the ability or mindset yet to be able yet to make a "Made in Canada" system and either look at the British system or American systems ONLY for ideas. It will come and we will definitely do it someday, but Canadians often forget how young we are a nation and how much more growing-up we have to do yet. It contributes to our "anti-Americanism" and we are still attached to ANYTHING with the word "Royal" in front of it. The thought of eliminating the word "Royal" from ANYTHING that has it at present in Canada appalls many Canadians and many consider it to be the same as showing total disrespect and rudeness towards a parent or grandparent. We'll get over it......give us time......but in the meantime, drop the national "inferiority complex" regarding ANY OTHER country or peoples. Just because those south of us speak English, have a Democracy and the same "Motherland" doesn't mean that we always have to look in that direction. Ditto for England also because I personally apprecaite their contribution to my nation, my laws and my history, but it now time to move-on, stand tall and be the separate entity and nation that we proclaim to be. I did exactly the same thing when I left my parents home and began my own. At that point I also changed from being a "Master" to a "Mister" and was accorded all the duties and responsibilities that went with that change and being an adult.

Well said

[Brewguy]

You are of course entitled to your opinion, as am I.

Just think about one thing: If all positions were elected (Commons, Senate, Judiciary and perhaps even Governor General) - then whatever political party forms the government at that time, would have ALL of the power.

Consider this as an example: back when the Mulroney government fell (or should I say the Kim Campbell government?) If ALL positions were elected like you suggest, we would have gone overnight from having a strong PC government (Commons, Senate and Judiciary) - to having a complete Liberal majority (in the Commons, Senate and Judiciary).

My point was that, IN THEORY, appointed positions are INTENDED to provide stability. If you read in detail, I also indicated that in practice it does not currently function as it is intended to, that the PM's Office has too much power in making these decisions, and that reform is necessary.

Going back to my example about the fall of the PC's - in our current (although somewhat flawed) appointment system, conservatives should have been somewhat relieved that they at least retained some conservative representation in the Senate and Courts. And that the new Liberal majority at the time could only appoint as many of their cronies to these institutions as there were vacancies.

Oh, and my recomendation for kick-ass Senators would be Farley Mowat and MGen Lewis MacKenzie

[just another pilot]

I have not stated corruption cannot exist if judges were are appointed rather than elected. I have merely stated that it was the initial intent to prevent corruption when the Canadian Government was initially structured.
CYYZ. Yep, bleeding heart judges are appointed by our elected representatives to enforce Canadian laws - so I blame them for the bs sentencing criminals have been recieving. Conditional sentencing may not cause our jail system to overflow, but we can see the lack of any deterring effects in Mayorthorpe, Alberta.
Who appoints? LH is correct that party patronage is rampant in the Senate. So much so that it is in Canadian classroom social study textbooks as a standard SOP. Rather than being a check and balance, it is used to secure power - wow. Cabinet postings as a reward for loyalty is not restricted to ones own party, right Belinda? Well I guess you got seven more months of power eh Paul?
Indeed, patronage has become something of a Canadian art form. Compared to American and British systems, patronage in Canada is endemic. The counter weight to umbridled democracy.

[shimmydampner]

Once again, you're either not reading the entire post or you're choosing to ignore large parts of it. Take a deep breath, calm yourself down and re-read my last post. I think you'll find exactly what you're looking for there.

How can he use it to enshrine rights when "through constitutional means" he removes the ability for the federal government to use it? What happens when churches are forced by the courts to perform ceremonies that they don't agree with? Where is the ability to protect the religious rights of the churches?

I can't belive people would want our political system changed to a system that removes our elected officials and put appointed people in charge of national policy.

Wow, I didn't think it was this difficult but OK, I'll connect the dots for you.

http://kellyharmsworth.com

there ya go I showed where he said it. now show me where harper said he would use it to not allow gays to marry.

And, you're right, it was a poor choice of words on my part about removing homosexual marriage rights. He merely said that pending the outcome of a free vote in the House, he would use it to protect the "traditional" definition of marriage.

Is there any particular reason why you wish to be argumentative when someone affirms that you are correct? Perhaps a little too much o' the sauce before posting is clouding you thoughts and increasing your belligerence?
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/h ... s_üveg.jpg[/img]

[tellyourkidstogetarealjob]

Crime rates in Toronto and Vancouver that have reached the same levels as major U.S. cities - unthinkable in 1967.

:!: ARBITRARY "FACT" ALERT :!:

Examples of crime statistics from 2004, all figures quoted are based on incidents per 100,000 population:

U.S. Violent crime total: 465.5
Canada Violent crime total: 946.1

U.S. Property crime total: 3517.1
Canada Property crime total: 3990.9

Specific examples,

U.S. Motor vehicle theft: 421.3
Canada Motor veh. theft: 530.7

U.S. Burglary: 729.9
Canada B&E: 859.9

U.S. Robbery: 136.7
Canada Robbery: 86.0

Canadian source: StatsCan
U.S. source: F.B.I. Uniform Crime Reports


This forum is not a scientific paper so I don't cite everything when writing.

Crime rates have dropped in Canada until recently but they've dropped faster in the U.S.

[CID]

tellyourkidstogetarealjob, you've fallen in a common statistics comparison trap. Canada and the US are different countries with different cultures. Similar, yes, but different.

As such, we have much different methods in categorizing crime. What may be defined as violent crime in Canada may not even appear on the radar in the US.

Furthermore, the US has an estimated higher incidence of crimes that are not reported. This is due to the larger gang influence down there. Gangbangers don't generally call the cops when they are beaten up.

If you want the statistics to be meaningful you need to distill them to common terms, and even then they aren't completely compatible. For example, according to StatsCan and the US Justice department (easily found on a Google serach) I found the following:

548 homicides in Canada in 2003

16,528 homicides in the US in 2003

361 sexual assaults using a weapon in Canada in 2003

93,883 "rapes" in the US in 2003

444 Murders in Chicago in 2005 (City of 2.8 million)

268 Murders in Balimore Maryland (City of 650K, About the same size as Winnipeg)


http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/reports/pdf/pls_2002/08_e.htm

Since the US has roughly 10 times the population of Canada, its not difficult to see that you are at much greater risk of being murdered or raped by just crossing the border.

In study after study, the difference is often attributed to crimes using a firearm. It appears that gun restrictions in Canada work in this respect but it's quite disturbing to see gun crime on the increase in Canada. We really need to squash the risk of adopting the gun culture of the US.

[sakism]

....

[mantogasrsrwy]

Any decisions they make will be tempered by their underlying belief that Ontario is an evil place and that its residents should be punished.

As I outlined above, the Conservatives are not an option for a resident of Ontario.

So I'm stuck with Liberals by process of elimination.

Sorry buddy but my Conservative Candidate (GTAA) lives in my riding and I would venture to guess he's more concerned about it than Alberta or Quebec. Come on, you can come up with a better reason than that to follow the sheep and vote Liberal. You won't convince me than the Conservatives could possibly be any worse than what we have now, so on that note I figure I have nothing to lose by voting blue.....in Ontario.

[just another pilot]

Sakism, what are your best interests? Will they at the expense of other regions? What is wrong with a party correcting wrongs - if any?
There is no conservative revenge agenda, if that what people in the East believe. Western Canadians do not hate Easterers, but we are disgusted with Liberal politics.
The grass roots reform ideology of the Conservative party was to reform federal politics. (ie. Tripple E Senate reform.) They are, and always have been opposed to the centralized and domineering power of federalism.
When regions feel unrepresented, they form political parties (perhaps you are aware of the parties in the 30's). There exists in Canada regional cleavages that are expressed in federal politics - always have been. It would be interesting to see how these parties would evolve around an elected senate. One that could fairly and efficiently represent their regions, rather than the garbage we witness in Parliament.
Now I'm not that old, but I have never witnessed such an abuse of a political system like that which has occured in Ottawa over the past year. The blatant patronage, members hiding behind curtains for secret votes, fear mongering and the back room deals are a testament to the abuse of, and the struggle for, power in Ottawa.
I predict if we have another Liberal government, you will see a much deeper division within Canada.