Regular reader “gimbol”;
I was watching the CTV scrum of Martin answering questions from reporters after his big speech today.
Gloria Galloway coldcocked Bucky with a question that I’m sure almost made him lose his lunch.
Not verbatum but I think I’m close to the verbage.
“..If you remove the NWSC and the supreme court decides to deny two tier medicine is a violation of right to security of person, what are you going to do then?..”
Methinks Gloria was reading your “SWTE:Martin Abandons The Canada Health Act”
I hope the hell someone was.
I can’t believe it’s taken this long to ask the question.
The Liberals have spent years dumbing down the political discourse. In this case they�ve conditioned the public to think that the NWC is a bad thing.
So now they�ve hastily come up with an idea that they believe the brain-washed electorate will buy, no doubt focus grouped it and received the expected feedback, and are now being bit on the ass because disinformation can only be spread so far.
Looks good on them. Jerks.
But paul promised to use section 33 to protect christians from being forced to perform same sex marriage.
http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=1&nid=35500
Private Healthcare Clinic to Open in Ottawa
Melanie Adams
Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:56 AM
The founder of a private medical clinic in Vancouver has confirmed plans to open a similar centre in Ottawa.
The Copeman Healthcare Clinic will offer a range of services; some covered by OHIP, and others that are not.
For 23-hundred dollars a year, clients will have access everything from diagnostics to physiotherapy.
Founder Don Copeman says the doctor-to-patient ratio will be four times better than the average family practice.
The 11-thousand square foot facility is expected to open this summer.
Good thing the SC ruled they should be able to!
I can’t believe why no reporter has asked Martin why he is trying to Americanize the Charter. In the US the Supreme Court has the final say on matters of Constitutional law. Isn’t that what Martin wants to do?
RE: Kate’s post at the CBC Roundtable via the link, I say:
Now we know:
Paul Martin isn’t just a liar… he’s a STUPID LIAR.
Is this a prime minister?
It�s also surprising that such a question would come from Gloria Galloway, given her usual patently anti-Harper reporting. Maybe she’s branching out.
I�m curious about the response. Did PMPM just do more hand-flapping? (The Reuters photog couldn�t even freeze them in a picture from last night�s debate.) Or was it just a plant so he could provide a prepared answer?
Go and read the comments on Angry’s Mike Duffy/John Duffy post. Read them right now.
Mike Duffy is on Adler describing the intimidation. Angry is working on getting the audio. Apparently he was physically threatened.
Kate:
Just saw your latest on the “Roundtable”.
Holy smokes! Well done!
As a serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces, I can only ditto the comments.
I spent an hour or so surfing around the sites at lunchtime, and there are many CF people making angry comments.
One very critical thing I noticed: THESE SOLDIERS/SAILORS/AIRMEN are SIGNING their NAME and RANK in many cases!
Many of your readers who don’t have a military background may miss the significance of this. Rule #1 for us in these situations is “Keep your Gate Shut” about politics, and understandably so. Some servicepeople have now opened themselves up to the possibility of reprimand, and they know it, AND THEY ARE SO MAD THEY DON’T CARE!
How’s that for a message to the Librals?
Again, as we say in the Navy, BZ!
I believe Harper alluded to the Quebec SCC decision stating that the government can’t deny a user private health services, then tied it into the NWSC issue….. he did this in the Health care questioning of the French leader’s debate. Now I don’t know whether Galloway took her cue from Steven or vice versa. Gallowy obviously inverted the Quebec SCC reference to private health access as a right (which was a popular decision in Quebec) to illustrate how dangerous removing parliamentary override can be and used this in the Charter questioning….she scored on Dithers on that one and certainly to the right audience.
Mad Mike,
This is the same Liberal bunch who took $16.5 Billion from the CFSA and used it to pay down the deficit. Then they raised your pension contributions to put enough back in the fund so old vets like me could continue to collect our pensions. Now they want you to re-elect them so they can rip you off some more.
All throughout this campaign, PMPM has been fond of mentioning his father as one of the prime architects of the public health care system in this country.
Now he would remove the notwithstanding clause which (especially after the Chaouelli decision) would open the door for the Supreme Court to strike down the public health system as is presently constituted.
Mr. Martin, if you are willing to follow through with this, you would seem to suggest that either your father was misguided to begin with, or the massive cuts to health care you introduced as Finance Minister destroyed your father’s legacy.
Which is it?
As a former leopard crew commander,and a veteran of many overseas missions (including one mission in Rwanda where i nearly had my head taken off..)i must say that i am stunned by the The Liberals casual inference to the Armed forces as a threat to its own people and country.
It makes my blood boil when these slap happy socialists who have never rallied to the colours sully by cheap insinuation and smirks the brave men and women of todays CAF. They,(not through high pay,ego or lack of courage and conviction…) put death as a job description to advance the interests of every Canadian in this land.
Not just the ones who would use them as pawns to retain power.The only time that these fine young men and women are mentionioned ,it is always in an unflattering light.
this must stop. it will end on Jan. 23
mad mike,
You make a good point, people in the military are not permitted to voice thier political opinions. I’m told by a very reliable source that it violates the QRO. So any time a military man or woman comes to the defense of the Liberals I have always taken it with a grain of salt since contradicting the party line could well result in a blanketing charge of “Conduct Unbecoming”
I would be very interested to see what kind of disciplinary action could be taken against serving personnel who signed their names to statements that said, in effect, that they would not serve as an occupying force or take up arms against their fellow citizens except in aid to the civil power.
The Conservatives need to hammer Paul Martin on the Not us clause.The Liberals make it seem like a bad thing, they need to be shown up for this cheap last gasp stunt.Bury them with 10 good reasons to retain the not withstanding clause.Our constitution is 28 years old the country is still evolving.Protect current and future Canadians by allowing elected politicians the ability to reflect the will of the people.If the politicians get it wrong at least they can be voted out
The Martinites were in such trouble they had to give away tickets to the Dither’s lunch today.
They couldn’t fill the place.
Interesting. At this point in the campaign buckie jr. can’t get a full house in Toronto.
They had to pull candidates and workers of the campaign trail to make a credible crowd.
CTV suggests everyone was sleeping off the enjoyable night at Iggy Pop’s show last night.
It is fortunate it wasn’t held in Montreal, they would have been relaxed and not attending as they recovered from the Stones’s concert.
Tired.
CTV — http://tinyurl.com/89wcm
30 secs in. Bloody priceless. The French media hounds him mercilessly, aussi. Quebec has turned on him
Thought Paul Hunter was going to cry on CBC today, talking about Libs’ fortunes. And seems spirits are a tad muted over at CTV as well. The end of an era? No more chances of postings to sunny climes for selling their souls over the years? One thing is abundantly clear: Paul Martin was allowed to buy a PMship although totally unqualified. He’s a man of so little substance, totallly dependent on the hacks around him and a media willing to attempt to sell him as a credible package. Now, like the powerful Oz, he’s been revealed as nothing more than a weak, incompetent pretender. i hope this never is allowed to happen again.
I think that all these tough questions are a result of the Liberals trying to strongarm Mike Duffy into not asking about the infamous Liberal ad.
The MSM may be a misguided lot, but they do have their pride and will go to the wall for each other.
As a member of the Forces we can be reprimanded for speaking out on issues. The only legal escape we do have is when we comment we can not and I repeat not use our ranks or position within the Forces. The charges if they were to be laid under the QR&O’s (Queens Orders and Regulations) would more then likely be a NDA129 Conduct against the good order and dicipline or failure to obey a legal order. I seriously doubt that any Commanding Officer would charge a member for speaking his mind on this topic if it is done intelligently and with good taste. The media cover of any such Court Martial would not be in the best interests of the Forces and I doubt it would be tolerated by the Canadian public. I do agree with the Forces being Non Political just as the RCMP is for reasons that should be obvious too all readers.
Can someone explain to this American what the point is of having a Charter, whose signal protections can be waived by Parliament or a provincial government at will for five years at a time?
On the face of it, one would think that removing that power (to effectively suspend the Charter’s protections for purposes of any specific law) would be something to applaud, no?
I’m thinking there must be some part of Canadian Consitutional Theory that I’m missing here, where the Notwithstanding Clause is a good thing. (Perhaps it’s that the Canadian system is so imbalanced in general that something is needed to keep Parliament from being overwhelmed? But if that’s the case, isn’t the solution to reform the whole damn thing?)
Any govt with a majority could force through a vote utilizing the not with standing clause but it has to be re newed within five years. By law our govt has to stand for election every five years so the voice of Canadians will be heard if a govt ever did try and use it in a way that was unacceptable to the Canadian population.
Sigivald,
Someone noted last night that our parliamentary condition was a compromise between the Westminster and the Philadelphia models of governance. Our model currently allows for only two measures in checks and balances: 1) the Prime Minister and his/her Cabinet sitting in the House of Commons and being directly answerable to the Opposition during Question Period and 2) the notwithstanding clause which ultimately protects the will of the public against the rulings of unelected judges.
For years we have seen that point 1 no longer applies, with the deflections and dismissals of Cabinet against allegations by the Opposition that are at least worth investigating by an independent party. For years Liberals have believed that their own investigations, backed up by an ethics commissioner answerable only to the PMO, were adequate to answer these allegations.
Now Mr. Martin would take away our only other visible check against government by removing the notwithstanding clause, thus leaving the interpretation and creation of policy at least partly in the realm of judges who are currently appointed without challenge by…you guessed it…the PMO.
Honestly, I would agree to this IF Mr. Martin would agree that appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada had to be approved by a Commons committee. This is currently not the case. Over the past 12 years, vacancies to the SCC have been made by the Prime Minister without an opportunity for the elected members of Parliament to challenge such an appointment.
Imagine what the American Supreme Court would look like under such a policy. In our current system, the hearings around Judge Alito would not even happen. He would simply be acclaimed to his position by an executive who refuses to be answerable to the people.
This represents the true danger to Canadian democracy. Over the past 12 years, the Liberals have attempted to consolidate power within the PMO even in areas of provincial jurisdiction. This has helped to fuel not only the Quebec sovreigntist movement, but also an emerging sovreigntist movement in the West.
Long story short, Paul Martin wants to eliminate accountability in our federal government in a vain attempt to save his own hide. Canadians cannot, and will not, stand for this.
Siqivald, up here if you want to be a judge who rules on any important decisions, you pretty much have to be at least a tacit contributor and supporter of the Liberal Party of Canada. They are the party has dominated our political life by having the support of two large eastern provinces and one large western city, Vancouver, which is Canada’s L.A., more or less. Due to elecion night blackouts, the usual scenario here in the Western half of the country is that when the blackout is lifted we find out that we have another Liberal government before our votes are even counted.
So in American terms, imagine a party, call the the Browns, who remained in power almost in perpetuity through the support of just three states, say California, Washington and Massachusets. Now imagine that your judges, who made laws for all and who were allowed to override Congress and the Senate were all tacitly required to be supporters of the Brown party.
In that circumstance, don’t you think that giving the non-Brown state Americans the right to have a say in what sort of country they want — I think that’s called democracy, or something — is a pretty good idea?
Can someone explain to this American what the point is of having a Charter, whose signal protections can be waived by Parliament or a provincial government at will for five years at a time?
Relax Sigivald, it’s not ALL of the rights which can be overruled by a legislature for five years at a time and renewed indefinitely … it’s only the “fundamental” rights which can be overruled.
In any case, the rights themselves are so weakly defined, and the persons holding the rights have allowed themselves to become so debauched in their quest for welfare entitlements, that it hardly matters what any judge or legislature has to say about them.
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
(POCKET EDITION)
1) You have the right to have your paycheque taken from you, and to have all aspects of your life controlled by government elites.
2) If you prostrate yourself in a suitably humble way in front of the elites, they will allow you to have some small benefits of the money they have taken from you – after they have deducted most of the funds for themselves.
Reluctant Ninja: Thank you for explaining the issue so succinctly.
If Questions are no longer such a big deal in forcing issues, is there a mechanism similar to the Attorney’s General of the States and the Assistant Attorney’s General of the Justice Department in originating investigations?
Hungry,
The closest thing we have to that is the Auditor General, who has (kind of) the authority to invesigate cases of financial mismanagement or abuse, which may sometimes be criminal.
Investigations and charges must still be handled by the RCMP. Unfortunately, the Commissioner of the RCMP is hired and fired by the PM … which makes those kinds of things hard to do. IIRC, we lost 3 Commissioners in short succession over the long-gun registry because they kept opposing it.
One of Conservative’s policies regarding Government Corruption involves the creation of a special prosecutor, I believe.
Sigivald
While the NWSC may be seen strange to someone in the U.S., here in Canada it makes perfect sense. Remember, under our system we have none of the checks and balances that you in the U.S. (i.e.) the separation between the judicial, executive and legislative. Another example, you have an elected Senate; we don’t. In Canada all the major appointments are made by the Prime Minister. This includes the Supreme Court judges, Federal judges, head of the military, head of the RCMP, federal bureaucrats, to name just a few. So, in this case having the notwithstanding clause makes perfect sense. It was the four western provincial premiers (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia) that insisted that the clause be inserted. What is interesting it is that the four western provinces are probably the ones with the closest ties to the U.S.
If the Libs weren’t dying in Quebec already, this NWC nonsense has made Bucky’s campaign stop in it’s track.
Pretend I’m a Bloc supporter – I’m not! I said pretend.
Pretend I love the fact that there are English/French signs in every corner of the country, French only signs in Quebec, etc. because the NWC enabled the language laws to stand.
Imagine Bucky just threatened to repeal that very same clause.
Imagine I’m a Province and I take the Feds to the Supreme Court because it’s single-tier health care system is putting my people at risk and I want to be allowed to institute two-tier – and I want the Feds to pay for it.
And imagine the Supreme Court sez in all their supremeness “Yes, go forth and multiply – pay-for-service-clinics that is – and while you’re at it get rid of all those silly signs that you can’t fully read!
Imagine that…..
Paul, you really are a dumb SOB.
I said that, in Canada.
MasterCpl (Ret’d) Jason Keane
if CPC just gets a minority. lets lay some bets on how long the partners in slime (NDP and Liberanos) take to run a non-confidence vote.__– will they have the seats warm yet or will they just stay standing after the introductions.
less than 3 months is my bet.
the winner gets a week in shawinigan, the runner up gets two weeks in shawinigan. And all the golf balls you can trade. its all paid for by the department of Scooter Brisson.
FREE the WEST
Saw Martin in Agincourt. Looks like Howard Dean. It’s very scary. I think his strategists might soon have to convince him to fake his own death, abort the election until he can be resurrected, then try again.
Thanks Cal2 — it would not take 3 months, and I am having nightmares already thinking about it. The libs would have a new, improved, clean leader (after all Chretian and Martin were crooks)and THEY will lead you and the sheeple to a once more prosperous and honest and transparent Canada. And every Canadian with a half a brain or less will vote them right back in again. It is very important that the CPC gets a majority right off so at least they get a chance to govern. In the meantime buy up any and all stocks in recycling companys because I think there is going to be a glut of shredded paper available shortly thereafter Jan 23.
The point where Bucky is going to fall into the abyss on this question of choosing between being the saviour of medicare, or standing up for the charter is this.
When Charet decides he doesn’t want to fight the courts and allows folks to “opt out” it effectively puts the premier in the postion of being able to sue the federal government if it decides to penalize Quebec by witholding transfers….which is essentially the only way a PM could fight this without a NWSC.
Of course that would put the PM in the position of cherry picking which rights he wants to uphold. An amount that could resolve the fiscal imbalance. If Quebec does it, the other provinces can follow suit to “uphold a fundemental charter right.”
All we need now is some journalist lurking around the blogs to pick up on this and pose the question to Bucky or any of the liberal candidates. Better yet ask Duffy or Reid, you’ll get far more entertainment value out of it.
One other point on the NWSC that somebody better inform Bucky on:
This vaunted clause that Bucky wants to do away with to “keep a prime minister from using it” is not something the PM can use unilaterally.
Its Parliament’s and Parliament has the final say. Not the government, not the PM.
The PM has to ask permission of the people (in the form of its elected reps) if it shall or shall not be used.
Its not the PM’s to decide.
So accusations about Harper or anyone using the NWSC are not only false, they are wrong.
Dither’s must have been asleep the day they where discussing constitutional law.
I already hear the constitutional experts are saying this is stupid. I wonder if any of those dissenting voices of the “experts” where the same 134 legal experts that said Harper couldn’t get around SSM without using the NWSC?
Guess national referendums is the way Bucky wants to go if he wants to get rid of the NWSC.
There appears to be some confusion about the NWC and protecting public health care.
The SC ruled 4-3 that a provincial law in Quebec banning people from paying for services that are covered by public health care was against the Quebec Charter of Rights. The Quebec Charter of Rights differs from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms substantially, to the point that the SC split 3-3 on the issue of whether a private health care ban was unconstitutional in Canada.
In fact, because the federal government doesn’t actually deliver services, it may be able to ban private health care without a constitutional challenge.
Further, the federal government has NEVER used the NWC for ANYTHING.
I’m not sure where I stand on this personally. I can’t really think of a good reason to use the NWC. In the Quebec decision, people were dying because the public system does not offer services in a timely manner. Is it better that people continue dying, but that we maintain an allegience to public health care?
If wait times in the public system were reduced, there would be no constitutional challenge and private health care could be banned without using the NWC. I don’t think it’s necessary, assuming politicians are serious about supporting public health care.
“I can’t really think of a good reason to use the NWC.”
That’s because maybe you didn’t try hard enough Jacques.
How about if the SC decided to give them selves raises of ….One Billion Dollars.
Then they ruled that the priministers job was all redundant and stuff.
Then to top it off they said that Native fishing rights can be extrapolated to mean that indiginous peoples can hunt your dog in your living room while they resurrect their other cultural relic of capturing other tribes women and children through warfare.
Or what if the SC said something like PET’s buddy Castro said after he siezed power as just another garden variety lying POS socialist to quickly became a garden variety lying POS fascist.
Or Pinochet.
Or Mugabe
Or Pol Pot
Or Papa Doc
Or Baby Doc
Or Idi Amin
Or Saddam
Or Assad
Or Kim
Or Milosovik
Or Marcos
etc.
To all the good men and women in the military that are reading this blog, I wish to thank you for your willingness to lay your life on the line to defend our country and its citizens.
I think if anyone should have the right to speak out against or for any government, it should be the brave men and women of our Forces, because afterall their very lives are in the governments hands.
Jacques:
My add on about health care was less about the NWSC and more on a question of whether Bucky would penalize Quebec for violating the CHA.
It would put the province of Quebec in the position of having to be the one to use the NWSC or get penalized by Paul Martin.
By trying to get rid of the NWSC Paul Martin could “excuse” himself from having to make a difficult decision.
Thats not leadership, thats cowardice.
Thanks for the explanations, guys. I had tacitly assumed that there was more check and balance in Canadian government.
Which I guess prompts the obvious question “Why aren’t there more?”, though I suppose the obvious answer is “because the Charter was a compromise situation for an already-established government and that’s the best that could be managed”.
Is that about right?
(Yes, I was aware that Canadian high judges are appointed… I just thought that letting Parliament do anything-it-wants-for-five-years-a-stretch was a bit of an odd way to offset that. Especially since whichever party controls Parliament sets the PM and thus controls court appointments, yes?
Makes me even more glad I’m an American, to be perfectly honest, though I’ve always found Canada a thoroughly pleasant place.)