Canadian government to fall

[Kuciwalker]

Who is "he"?

Whoever the hell I was responding to.

[Odin]

What's the Notwithstanding Clause?

[Asher]

Harper and Martin hold a fierce competition to see who can be most juvenile:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/11/30/canada.campaign.reut/index.html

[KrazyHorse]

The part of the Constitution (more precisely the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) which gives governments the power to overrule the Supreme Court if it decides that a law is unconstitutional.

It has been invoked a number of times by the Quebec provincial government over language laws and on occasion by other provincial governments. It has never been used by the federal government. The only times that a law has been held to be unconstitutional and has been saved by its reference to the notwithstanding clause (i.e. the only times that the Charter has been overruled) were regarding Quebec's language laws.

[Asher]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notwithstanding_clause

[Odin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The part of the Constitution (more precisely the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) which gives governments the power to overrule the Supreme Court if it decides that a law is unconstitutional.

It has been invoked a number of times by the Quebec provincial government over language laws and on occasion by other provincial governments. It has never been used by the federal government. The only times that a law has been held to be unconstitutional and has been saved by its reference to the notwithstanding clause (i.e. the only times that the Charter has been overruled) were regarding Quebec's language laws.

Man, thats ****ed up, What use is judicial review if parliament can ignore it?

[Kuciwalker]

I would say that it's more difficult to pass a law that explicitly states that it's overruling some Charter right, and would cause more alarm to the public.

[Ben Kenobi]

I am pro gay marriage because I am pro family values. By not allowing portions of the population to take part in the family structure, we push them outside of the family, and weaken family values as a whole. It would be a lot better, for society, and for the people forced out, if they could be allowed to form families, and have support for long term stable relationships. This is a much stronger position of mine.

Yes by defining a family to mean anything you want. This isn't a conservative view but a liberal view, no different from Asher or the rest of the liberal folks here. They would argue precisely as you do that unless we define a family to mean whatever people want to be considered a family, this will weaken the bond within a family.

Now, if you consider a family with a mother and father and children to be valuable in itself, that's a far different position. You are not forcing people out of their families, since they will always have their parents so long as their parents are alive. I think that if we treat all relationships to mean the same, then these relationships don't mean much anymore.

For example, how does one define 'committed?' What makes a relationship 'committed' other then the fact that the person considers their relationship to be so?

(although I would be completely fine with not allowing abortion at any time.. better to not murder and to limit freedom, then to allow freedom but murder)

Now this I can understand why you would consider yourself a social conservative if you would have no problem banning all abortions except those done to save the life of the mother.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I would say that it's more difficult to pass a law that explicitly states that it's overruling some Charter right, and would cause more alarm to the public.

Bingo.

Much of our constitutional law is unwritten, anyway.

I don't agree with the insertion of the Notwithstanding Clause, but the judiciary still holds a check on the government.

[Ben Kenobi]

Flubber:

Do you have those proportional numbers at hand?

All I know is that currently Canada runs surpluses and are slowly paying down the debt. Last time I checked we had GDP geowth greater than the States IIRC . Contrast this with record deficits in the US.

Looking at total debt gives you a picture of a country from the beginning of time and doesn't necessarily give you much of a picture of the current economic health

Also, a LOT of debt was incurred during the Mulroney years

Give me a sec.

US TOTAL PUBLIC DEBT

11/28/2005 $8,098,860,986,660.42

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Canadian TOTAL FEDERAL DEBT

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/govt03a.htm

628,830,000,000

Given the Canadian population of 31 million, and the US population of 300 million the overall debt per capita is higher in the US then here.

US debt/capita = 30k

Can debt/capita = 20k

US and Can GDP

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

11.75 trillion = US GDP
1.02 trillion = CAN GDP

US debt/GDP ratio = 76.8%
CAN debt/GDP ratio = 61.5%

However, I haven't accounted for the debt from the Canadian provinces. Some are more indebted then others. If the total provincial debt is 150 million dollars, then that would put us in the same position as the US.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2000/fiscbal_e.html

Provincial debt is somewhat less then 50% of the federal debt, so around 250 billion is provincial, and we are just as indebted as the US.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
US TOTAL PUBLIC DEBT

11/28/2005 $8,098,860,986,660.42

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Canadian TOTAL FEDERAL DEBT

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/govt03a.htm

628,830,000,000

Also doesn't take into account the fact that the US SS scheme is owed trillions of dollars by the rest of the US gov't, whereas the Canadian scheme is self-financed.

[KrazyHorse]

As well, if you want to argue about indebtedness of provinces then you need to put in indebtedness of states (which are not included in US calculation either).

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ninot

FWIW, I learned in high school that not-withstanding was put in at the request of western provinces.

Not saying thats my opinion, thats just what I learned.

Lougheed. IIRC, he and Leveque were allies (along with six others to start with) in seeking breaks on federal power. They were holding out on agreeing with Trudeau at the Const. Conference of 1981. The six worked on proposals that might be acceptable to themselves, Trudeau, Leveque, and Lougheed. Lougheed went along with the final proposal that included the NWS clause, which Trudeau accepted. Leveque did not.

And so the unhappy story of Quebec and the ROC closed another chapter. What was your hurry, Mr. Trudeau, and why did you have to cave, Mr. Lougheed?

[Ben Kenobi]

(which are not included in US calculation either).

It says total public debt, making no difference between federal and the states.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Odin


Man, thats ****ed up, What use is judicial review if parliament can ignore it?

Welcome to a land of a living Constitution and the Supremacy of Parliament.