I do not speak french, so I am curious to know if when any of Harper/Martin/Layton speak french, do they bastardize the french language as badly as Duceppe does to the english language? Just curious. I watched the debate off and on last night and everyone seemed pretty subdued overall. My guess is they did not want a major blunder and perhaps lose the election because of it.

What removing this clause will do is leave Canada to a Judicial dictatorship, with no mechanism to stop them.

A recent Supreme Justice of Canada's comments in New Zealand had the audacity to say that Judges should be able to ignore written law and basically just make rulings according to their own discord "willy nilly"

The soon Paul Martin is thrown out of office the better for this country, before the Liberals can destroy it more than they already have.

I flipped over to the Liberal website during the debate and they already had it up, so they must have had it all prepared well in advance of the debate. That was certainly the most surprising topic of the debate last night. Second most? That it wasn't leaked beforehand by Mr. Mole, although, I have to admit, Harper had a pretty good response to it all ready so one wonders if he was prepared for it.

TB
Cerberus

Great fun at the GO train station this morning. I'm running a little late, and I want to pick up the Post to see what they have to say about the debate. There's a crowd of people lined up to get one of those crappy free "newspapers" (24 and Metro).

And there, between us and the station doors in Wajid Khan, a Torontonian hand selected and transported into the riding as the Liberal candidate by none other than Dithers.

He has several minions with him handing out flyers.

And not one - not one person! - looks at him and his minions. Everyone walks past them as if they weren't even there.

Priceless!

Paul Martin just in last while since the gay marriage ruling has said that he would use the NWC to protect Churches (ya right).

So now Martin advocates taking this option away from the Feds. He thinks it is a terrible thing to use it?

It like having a fire in your house and refusing to use the fire extinquisher.

Paul Martin and the Liberals get more and more absurd every time they open their mouths.

I wish I understood French a little better (my 8 yrs. of Toronto public school French class didn't do me much good), because tonight's debate should be another Martin train wreck. He was already in a Quebec ditch; he just keeps on digging. I think the upshot of the whole NwC mess is that Harper gains truly serious traction in Quebec as the only nationalist option, and actually gets a few seats - Cannon and maybe another in MTL, plus a couple around Quebec City. It's doom for the Liberals, plus a huge boost for Charest and the rational middle in the province. A big problem for the separatists going forward.

I want to know if Duceppe has a funny accent in French, too, or if he's simply trying too hard to sound English. His English is very good; but his accents and intonations are bizarre.

Check this out from todays Toronto Star

thestar.com Poll

Who do you think performed best in the election debate?

Gilles Duceppe

148 4%

Stephen Harper

1632 53%

Jack Layton

445 14%

Paul Martin

850 27%

A little reaction to the creative edit of Martin's "Root Cause Of Poverty" gaffe in CTV's transcript plus what I think of the Notwithstanding Clause idea at my blog.

http://krydoristan.blogspot.com

Getting rid of the notwithstanding clause is the best thing I've heard so far, this law has been used in the past to over ride court decisions and oppress people, having a way to protect people from the mistakes of the courts can be achived in another way.

Is there any point in explaining to sam here that the Government of Canada has never invoked the NWC, never used it to override a Supreme Court decision? Or is he too Liberal to be bothered by facts?

Ian in NS: No. Yes.

Sam wrote "Getting rid of the notwithstanding clause is the best thing I've heard so far"

Really? Let us suppose that the nine Liberal Judges think the way that this judge in Burlington Vermont does. Hell we could just close all the prisons and get rid of the police and hire a whole whack of social workers instead.

There was outrage Wednesday when a Vermont judge handed out a 60-day jail sentence to a man who raped a little girl many,many times over a four-year span starting when she was seven.

The judge said he no longer believes in punishment and is more concerned about rehabilitation.
Full Story. http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=4319605

The money speaks: Conservatives up 20% on Tradesports.com market since start of debate last night, up to 78% to win most seats.

Sure Sam.......can you name when it was used???????

Another thing.........Would you rather be ruled over by a bunch of UNELECTED JUDGES, rather than an elected official who you can at least boot from office when they don't represent their constituents wishes.

You speak like a true communists or.....uhmmm Liberal.

We have enough totalitarianism with the Liberal now.........who needs to put Judges at the top of the heap?

My letter to the new PM

Dear Stephen,

Congratulations on your debate performance, the point that the Prime Minister’s job is to defend unity anyplace, anytime was well landed. Your thrusts and parries were for the most part well carried and believable.

I found Gilles Duceppe’s statement to be withering criticism, “The Prime Minster is a LIVING democratic deficit.” Oh that was painful, OUCH. Trying to draw the Options Canada scandal as a “federal scandal” was too long a bow, but a nice try.

On the gaffe of the century for a Prime Minister was the salvo about the notwithstanding clause. This has just handed you the election, my preliminary thoughts are below.

Well a long time ago I was invited by Senator Gerald Beaudoin to address the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee on Amending the Constitution of Canada.

This was in the run up to the Charlottetown Accord. I still have saved letters from this period from Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark, Jean Chretien and a gaggle of provincial premiers.

Removing the notwithstanding clause? This is clearly Constitutional policy invention on the fly. Suddenly, Mr. Martin has the support of 7 provinces and the federal government to pull this off. I wonder if we asked the provincial premiers whether they would remove the notwithstanding clause and agree on a moments notice.

This makes no sense to me. In times of national crisis, the notwithstanding clause might be invoked to suspend certain rights. In time of war or direct threat, such as when a terrorist group, floats a nuke in a container ship into one of a nation’s cities. Would the PM be justified in suspending civil rights, and invoke the notwithstanding clause in the event of national crisis? If I were PM faced with such a situation, I certainly would.

Kind of like the Patriot Act in the United States which had a 5 year time limit or sunset clause when the crisis or threat subsides. You might not want to use the US as an example right now with the Abu Graib and Guantanomo Bay stuff still fresh. However, I don't think I would willy nilly pull or dismiss this provision.

The Charter is supposed to be a plastic legal fabric that can respond to a variety of national pressures that can reverberate either internal or external to the country. Removing this clause ensures a legal rigidity without regard for serious external crisis pressures or internal difficulties.

Removing the clause in my view is somewhat rash and ill considered. Whatever happened to the “You can't cherry pick the Charter?” Isn't this precisely what PM Martin proposes to do?

In my view this arbitrarily hamstrings the federal power, in times of crisis, to for instance protect the population. This is not very wise and would likely result in a legal tear of the Charter fabric at some time in the future.

A host of other considerations would probably fill a book or two. I am sure all the premiers who bargained for this provision will be delighted that it was a meaningless ruse.

Unbelievable, I thought I wasn’t hearing right so I listened to the debate twice.

Carry on, but most of all have fun.

With kind regards

Hans Rupprecht CFP

The deck guns have fallen silent, the Liberal election battleship slowly takes her watery grave and the Liberal pennant is taken to the electoral briny deep.

Example Sam, examples please. The only use I konow about was Quebec's use of the clause regarding language laws.

I didn't think I would ever use this expression, but when I read about Martin's proposed constitutional change regarding NWC, I thought this is the "jumped the shark" moment of the campaign. The Libranos know it must be downhill from here on in.

Notwithstanding clause?

That was just a giant red herring. He tossed that in to try to muddy the waters...PM knows damn well that is just another promise he'll never have to keep. It's just wryly funny. He drew his sword, and promptly fell on it. Twit.

The most interesting and important thing said WRT the Constitution was Harpers' remark about putting property rights in. Property rights are not only critical to personal freedom, but are the basic foundation of wealth generation of free western societies.
I have found that when mentioning property rights in conversation, most people are amazed or dibelieving when they find out we do not have them in Canada. That single remark by Harper should give us more hope for the future than any policy announcement to date.

Good one again, Kate.

Fat Paulie speaks at the mike after the debate he said something like
"We are a country of minorities who need our special rights protected"

and we'll do that by turfing the NWC?

WTF kind of bassakwards stuff is that?

Majority rules is too easy ?

"We gave $5 billion to aboriginals because that's one of the root causes of poverty in our country."

That's right from the CTV transcript.. I don't see that they changed anything.

And Sam, I hope you're not serious. The NWC is one of the few concessions Canada has to Montesquieu's "power watching power" checks and balances. It would be irresponsible to throw it away before instituting something like elected Senators, judicial appointment reviews or something else. Secondly, it's also irresponsible to talk about modifying the Constitution to gain votes.

Did anyone catch this coming out of PMs mouth towards the end of the debate:"more than anything else, I believe that the role of the national government is to set great national objectives and then to build the national will behind them..."
Is this not another example, though less crudely said, of the kind of condescending and paternalistic Liberal attitude to governance?

Kate, your link to the Liberal web-site is actually to an older post of Stephen Taylor's.

As for Duceppe's French/English. I'm English, but also French-speaking - I'm biased against pretty much all North American French, too choppy for my tastes (enter the Parisian snob). In comparison to other Quebecois French, I think it's quite good (and really, I'm not the best judge of it - but he's no Chretien, messing up both languages).

Also, Jason Cherniak has a site by his own name, doesn't he? I don't think he's Calgary Grit (where your link points to). Up too late after the debate maybe? ;)

One issue that seemed to be lost in the NwC kerfuffle was Duceppe successfully pressing Martin to acknowledge that Quebec is a 'nation'. I am not up enough on the national unity jargon to understand the importance of this, but it seemed significant to me that the Prime Minister appeared to agree with the Separatists that a province was actually a 'nation' (though he may not quite have got there).

I thought that was bigger than the NwC issue, but no one is talking about it now, so I am wondering whether it really mattered?

Will Duceppe be able to score that point again in French?

Congratulations to all you hard working Bloggers you have got the MSM with their tails between their legs. I read a Toronto Star article that referred to the Conservative Bloggers Chastising their effort put a spin on Harper Musing about a Majority when in Fact he said the opposite. I want to take some credit their as I sent a letter off to their editor. They feel the pressure of real opinion, what a refreshing feeling, accountability in the Media.
As for the polls, all I can say is goodbye Screeching Annie, Farewell Paulie(AKA Mr Dithers) Adios Belinda(BS) don't let the door hit you in the Ass Reg All-cock, adieu Scott Brisson, Bon Voyage Pedigreed, Coder-re, et al.

I dont think PMPM actually used nation and quebec in the same sentence. he danced around it about 3 times. Gilles doesnt have the command of the English language to realize the strongest words in english are the words not said. ( the basis of all english humour)

just checked the transcripts , he definitely doenst use nation when talking about quebec. he says I dont have any problem using the word nation but its not in context of quebec. he says he recognizes quebec as (switch to french)
I think he said le Poutine. or something like that.

Yeah thanks, I looked at the transcript just now two and he was more evasive than I remembered. It sounded to me when I was watching that he did say it, but I can see that he did not quite really say it.

Surely Duceppe will try and push that ball across the goal line tonight?

And Harper's gentle rebuttal that maybe some Reformers opted back into the MP pension plan, but he doesn't and will be working a lot longer and harder as a result. A throw-away line that didn't get much if any attention that I've seen. But it says volumes about him.

maybe he can explain to some of his ethnic ridings now how he wont be able to protect them from the courts when someone insists on a same sex mullah mate.

hard to believe he can be so cunning in his words between the stutters and stammers.

He said giving $5billion to the first nations was a root cause of poverty. -that is true. you are always poor on the dole. you are only rich when you get out of it yourself.

The key on the NWC comment is Martin said "federal", that is, fed's lose its use but provinces right to use it would not be affected. Would he get it past the provinces?, maybe since they get to keep it.

The curious thing is that Martin would infeeble the federal government towards judgeship while allowing provincial government to effectively become relatively more powerful. I didn't think a relatively weaker federal government was the Liberal objective.

Mississauga Matt;

Good story! Wahjid Khan is my area MP too, and last week I was given the wonderful opportunity of actually throwing the bugger off of my property after he came around canvassing. It was hillarious; he introduced himself and held out his hand, and I just stared at it for several seconds until he started becoming jittery. I then simply asked him if he honestly thought that I would vote for him and his corrupt party, and if he thought that I was that stupid he could get the h**l off of my property. I know, I know, a little rude, but it DID feel good!

Mr.Khan should support SSM , seems like an obvious question , but not followed by a handshake.

maybe he could stumble around the answer like PMPM and claim Tommy Douglas was his father too.

Are Martins teeth loose or had he been drinking?

TheScout:

I got a phone call last Saturday afternoon - obviously some sales thingy...

I'm half asleep, in cruise control, waiting to politely say "sorry, not interested," when the girl on the other end says "I'm calling on behalf of Wahjid Khan."

Well I spring to life.

"What? What?" "No, never in a million years! No! Goodbye."

The girl on the other end was flabbergasted. I can only hope that she's encountered a few more of those.

Someone, I think on this site, suggested that when a Liberal creep calls you should play along and keep them tied up with you for as long as possible, thus keeping them away from more vulnerable voters. Not a bad idea but not my first reaction either.

I think rewatching a replay that he said under his breath that he was either "pure laine" or "not pure laine" not poutine . though I think "not pure laine" is the equivalent of poutine to a quebecer.

Martin is an ontarian in "pure laine " clothing.I think his Mum was an anglo as is his wife.

Liberals are running attack ad re Harper & Iraq. >

Liam O'Brien: Roundtable:

On Iraq, there isn’t much to say. Some Canadians would indeed have supported military intervention in Iraq. Martin was among them. In his own words:

"… Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible." - (North Bay Nugget, April 30, 2003)

"I don’t think there is any doubt, if there ever was … that [Saddam Hussein] does have weapons of mass destruction. … he had lied and that he is continuing to lie" - (Calgary Herald, March 7, 2003)

"… many of the weapons that Saddam Hussein had, for example, we do not know where they are, so that means the terrorists have access to all that." - (Globe and Mail, May 11, 2004)

"Once the war … began, Canada was far from neutral." - (CTV, May 21, 2004)

Dec 14, 2005 | Permalink >>
http://forums.cbc.ca/roundtable/2005/12/hi_there.html

I have just one comment concerning the ad which implies that Harper would turn Canada into a military dictatorship. Being an ex-sailor I am absolutely sickened by the insult directed at the men and women in our military. Expect every last one of them do his (or her) duty on election day.

A little OT but.....

The new Liberal TV ads are laughable. Go to www.liberal.ca and get ready to pee yourself laughing.

Hopefully the Canadian sheeple won't buy into this crap.

Anyone know where there's a stream for the French debate? Can't watch it on TV, but I will have Web access... preferably in French, since I can't stand the translators. Thanks!

i thought one of the saddest moments of the debate was Martin's declaration in support of taxing the rich for redistribution to the poor, given in a very offhand manner. i understand why Harper could not reply to this directly, but i hope he can bring about a change in societal attitude when he is elected.

I guess you've never heard of the Quebec language laws?
Morris Manning expresses it as follows:

If our freedom of conscience or religion can be taken away by a law which operates notwithstanding the Charter, if our right to life or liberty can be taken not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, what freedom do we have?
This practice largely ceased after 1985: section 33 has been used occasionally by both Liberal and Parti Québécois governments since that time. Quebec resorted to the notwithstanding clause after the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Chaussure Brown’s and Devine cases on the language of commercial signs, ruled that an outright prohibition of the use of languages other than French was an unreasonable limitation on the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Charter. The Quebec government thereupon introduced an amendment to the language law that would maintain unilingual French signs outside premises while permitting the use of other languages inside. To ensure that the amendment would not become the object of another legal challenge, the amending legislation invoked the legislative override authority of section 33 and the similar provision in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. This marked the first time that the override had been used in direct response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision, rather than in anticipation of litigation. The debate that followed was more intensive than it would have been in the latter case, perhaps because the Court had already ruled on the issue, and had identified the rights and freedoms at stake. Moreover, minority language rights have long been an emotional issue in Canada; there are few subjects where the use of the override would invite more controversy.

Here's where I got my info from where'd you get yours?

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp194-e.htm

I thought the people that posted here were informed?

Tyranny of the majority?

Legislative supremacy?

In addition to this omnibus invocation of s. 33, “it was used FIFTEEN(15) other times in Quebec, ONCE(1) in Saskatchewan, and ONCE(1) in Alberta”; the other provincial legislatures, as well as Parliament, have never used the ‘notwithstanding clause’.
The subject matter of the fifteen acts in Quebec which invoked the use of s. 33 were back-to-work legislation, pension plans, education, agricultural operations, the language used on signage and same-sex marriage.

Quebec (1982-85): Aftermath of the Patriation

Saskatchewan (1986): Back-to-Work Legislation

Quebec (1988): French Sign Laws

Alberta (2000): Definition of Marriage

I heard Paul Martin say he refers to Quebec as "un peuple" - a people. He never actually said it's a "nation", although he said he has frequently called Quebec a nation.

The separatists are particularly sensitive on the words used because, as I read somewhere years ago (forget where), the UN has some definition of sovereign nation that contains some specific words like 'distinct society'.

My thoughts about Paul Martin's announcement about getting rid of the notwithstanding clause.

Martin had to say it - the Young Libs made him, and they're running the show (or so they think). From their site:

Young Liberals across Canada hailed the Liberal government in June 2005 for extending access to marriage, a fundamental element of our social institution, to same sex couples. With the passing of C-38, the Civil Marriage Act, and judgements rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada and eight provinces, repealing equal marriage would require the extraordinary provision of section thirty three of the Charter of Rights, commonly known as the notwithstanding clause.

“Canada does not want a leader that that divides us by invoking the notwithstanding clause to deny basic human rights. Canada wants a leader that unites us by acknowledging and respecting our differences. That leader is Paul Martin,” says Milton Chan, Vice President Policy of Young Liberals of Canada. “Whether straight or queer, everyone deserves to have their love respected and recognized. Stephen Harper wants to use the election to render LGBT people second class citizens, and we must not allow such intolerance to prevail.”

The Young Liberals of Canada has been at the forefront of the equal marriage cause for over a decade, and has been a consistent champion within the Liberal Party and beyond for human rights initiatives. Equal marriage is official party policy for the Liberal Party of Canada.