Is Martin Bluffing

[red]

or will he call an election over the same sex marriage issue. I think he has done is homework and believes he can win on this issue.

[n_v]

I think he has done is homework and believes he can win on this issue.
Like he did when he called the last election and though he would get a majority. :rolleyes:

[someone]

or will he call an election over the same sex marriage issue. I think he has done is homework and believes he can win on this issue.

He may or may not use it as an excuse to call an election (but I doubt it). However it would not be the main issue of the election. Strongly religious people against it and homosexuals in favour may cast their votes based on this issue. However, I really can’t see the majority casting their votes on an issue that when it get right down to it, is not very important to them.

[red]

depends how they market it - it would as "lookout for the alliance - sure they will start with gay marriage- but they have other things on their social agenda they are not telling you"

[sizematters]

Harper's thinly disguised contempt of gays does not play well here in Ontario, maybe in Alberta but not here. Harper will be obliterated in an election called on this issue, hoisted on his own pitard.
This minority govt game will be won by the team who makes the fewest mistakes. Harper just coughed up the puck to Martin.

[blitz]

Yep!

[sizematters]

Yep!

[yychobbyist]

Ralph Klein keeps threatening to invoke the notwithstanding clause in this regard as welll despite his Attorney General telling him there's no basis. In my view, if you ever use the notwithstanding clause it better be about something that is of earth shattering importance to society in general and not about something like homosexual rights.

As for Martin, he doesn't exactly seem to be in a position where he's really able to go to the polls about this or any issue right now.

[antaeus]

Ralph Klein keeps threatening to invoke the notwithstanding clause in this regard as welll despite his Attorney General telling him there's no basis. ... Is not NWS clause federal jurisdiction thereby limiting any prospective invocation to a federal political party in the federal parliament. Oh my, do we need a constitutional expert here?



In fact I believe the Courts have ruled that the current laws on marriage violate the Charter of Rights. As such simply voting down gay marriage may in fact force the Courts to declare the current marriage laws as unconstitutional. They have to write a new law and Harper knows this as well as Martin.... Not quite so black and white. Court ruled that current legislation neither includes nor excludes same sex unions. No legislation is required. But SC ruling has become judge-made law barely enfranchising same sex marriage, hence all the gay marriages country wide. Alot of people agree real legislation is required and now. Also, potential for country-wide court challenges remains on other legal grey areas of marriage. Liberals have stated favoured legislation enfranchising marriage as union of two people. Harper et al have stated favoured legislation enfranchising "traditional definition of marriage". It is this traditional definition of marriage = man-woman that the SC ruled never really existed.

[yychobbyist]

Anteaus, the notwithstanding clause can be invoked by any provincial government or the federal government. It is not available solely to the feds. Saskatchewan has, in fact, invoked it with respect to a decision of the Supreme Court concerning its Potash industry.

[someone]

Is not NWS clause federal jurisdiction thereby limiting any prospective invocation to a federal political party in the federal parliament.
I believe that Quebec had to use the NWS clause for their sign laws. However, I think I heard somewhere that courts ruled that marriage was federal jurisdiction. Clearly, a province can't legislate in federal jurisdiction even with the NWS clause.

[slowpoke]

Martin will not let this cause the Government to fall.
bbk

Martin has said it would be a free vote in the house so it couldn't automatically cause the gov't to fall. Martin's cabinet ministers are expected to tow the party line but Liberal backbenchers can vote against. So the Liberal minority could lose the vote and it still wouldn't be seen as a non confidence signal. If the Liberals did lose the vote, Harper would be seen as the villan so it is a no win for Harper and a can't lose for Martin.

I think Martin mentioned the "election over gay marriage" thing just to emphasize how idiotic Harper's stance really is. Harper is being dishonest when he says he can get around the notwithstanding clause. Martin knows this perfectly well so he is quite prepared to turn up the heat on Harper by making it a major issue. Harper is losing credibility and beginning to look like a real amateur on this:

[Tues, Jan 25/05]"...A group of prominent law professors is accusing Conservative Leader Stephen Harper of misleading the public by suggesting Parliament can outlaw same-sex marriage without invoking the Constitution's notwithstanding clause.

"You must be completely honest with Canadians about the unconstitutionality of your proposal — which will only guarantee that same-sex marriage ends up back before the courts, as opposed to being resolved by Parliament," says the bluntly worded letter, which the 134 academics intend to send to Mr. Harper today..."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050125.wxharper-law25/BNStory/National/

[yychobbyist]

I believe that Quebec had to use the NWS clause for their sign laws. However, I think I heard somewhere that courts ruled that marriage was federal jurisdiction. Clearly, a province can't legislate in federal jurisdiction even with the NWS clause.

Exactly, the most a province could do is get out of the marriage business altogether and simply deal with civil unions. Which is kinda like the fat kid taking the ball home because he got picked last.

[Fortunato]

Clearly, a province can't legislate in federal jurisdiction even with the NWS clause.

Why is that "clear"? The Federal government legislates in provincial jurisdiction all the time (e.g. health care, education, etc.). All politicians seem to LOVE sticking their noses in places where they don't belong....


However, I think I heard somewhere that courts ruled that marriage was federal jurisdiction.

Actually, the constitution explicitly provides for both. Under federal jurisdiction (item #26) is Marriage and Divorce... and under exclusive provincial jurisdiction (#12) is The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province (as well as #13 - Property and Civil Rights in the Province).

Regardless, since the provinces are the ones that issue marriage licenses... you would expect their influence on "setting the rules"....


Best regards,

F.

[Fortunato]

Once again Fort. you got your facts wrong.

Quite the contrary. Once again, you show you just don't understand much.


It is the Federal Government's resposility to define what a marriage is

That's exactly what I said. Under section 91, item 26 of the Constitution, that is clearly identified.


- the Provincial Governments are resposible for the adiministration and procedural requirements.

Yes. EXACTLY. Also what I said under section 92, item 12 - The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province. I know you're a little dull, but "solemnize" means to duly perform. They issue licenses... they issue the REQUIREMENTS of GETTING A LICENSE. That is their job. That is their power. That is their constitutional RIGHT. The Feds can define marriage however they like... but the provinces can AND DO stipulate requirements - age, mental capacity, premarital counsel/course requirements, consent requirements, and (if they want)... sex*. They don't give a licence... no marriage. Regardless of the federal "definition". End of story*.


All the Feds are doing Fort is defining what marriage is.

Where have I suggested otherwise? The Feds get to decide what "married" means... the Provinces get to decide the requirements of GETTING MARRIED in that province.


Believe it or not Fort the Canadian Federal Government cannot do as you suggested - you know the rule of law. I think if you look closely Fort a great deal of Canadian Law is set up like the Marriage Laws and I believe that includes education, Health care etc.

Wrong (as always). Nowhere does the Federal government have jurisdiction over education... and the only jurisdiction they have over health care is in Marine Hospitals (section 91, item 11). Yet they pass legislation in these areas regardless, despite their lack of jurisdiction.


Anyways your first reaction will be to freak - but I've included a link that even you can figure out. I will be very interested in seeing you dance out of this one. Have fun.

Dance out of what? Mr. Someone suggested that the Provinces have no jurisdiction on the topic of marriage... I pointed out that this notion is simply not true. The provinces are the ones who actually DO marriages, and as such... very much their jurisdiction - regardless of how the feds "define" it.

As for your article... you might be better served to read the actual constitution. I know, I know... too many "big words" for you... but if you have someone "dumb it down" for you, you might find it informative...

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html#distribution

Good bye, genius.

F.


*before you run off in a tizzy, this would of course be subject to court challenges, etc.

[yychobbyist]

ahh, I was bemoaning the increase in civility around here lately.

[Goober Mcfly]

Martin will not let this cause the Government to fall. In fact I believe the Courts have ruled that the current laws on marriage violate the Charter of Rights. As such simply voting down gay marriage may in fact force the Courts to declare the current marriage laws as unconstitutional. They have to write a new law and Harper knows this as well as Martin. What Martin is doing is trying to light a fire under Harper's ass. Harper is in a no win situtation here and has already made a dumb mistake by saying this will lead to poligamy being legal. What Harper forgets is that being Gay is legal, poligamy is not.
Anyways it has come down to Harper saying he wants the notwithstanding clause invoke to save current marriage laws and Martin saying he does not want to play with the Charter of Rights. If Harper stays this course and is seen to be farking with the Charter of Rights - he will get his fanny handed to him in Ontario and the Liberals will then get a majority Government.


bbkThis scares the living hell out of me.

[someone]

Why is that "clear"? The Federal government legislates in provincial jurisdiction all the time (e.g. health care, education, etc.). All politicians seem to LOVE sticking their noses in places where they don't belong
F.

Technically, in those areas the federal government is bribing the the provinces to do what they want and/or threatenning to withhold past bribes if they don't. If Ralph wants to go his own way on health care, all he has to do is be prepared to lose the billions the feds currently give him for health care.

[Fortunato]

Technically, in those areas the federal government is bribing the the provinces to do what they want and/or threatenning to withhold past bribes if they don't. If Ralph wants to go his own way on health care, all he has to do is be prepared to lose the billions the feds currently give him for health care.

Absolutely agreed - and hence, the understandable resentment from the provinces (it's not just Alberta... Quebec is even more forceful on issues like education and child care).

Even still, the areas are outside federal jurisdiction... and legislation like The Canada Health Act are technically unconstitutional.... Personally, I think people should be outraged that the Federal Government is not only taxing us for things outside of their jurisdiction, but that they are also using that to force their way into matters that they should not be involved in to begin with.

But alas, too many these days think that governments should be able to do whatever they want, are indifferent, or are ignorant of basic things... like our consitution....

Best regards,

F.

[Fortunato]

What you said Fort was that the Feds always butt into Provinicial law in reference to the same sex legislation - and in that context you are wrong.


bbk

Really? Where??? I haven't changed any of my posts, and I don't see where I said that.

What I said that the Feds butt into Provincial jurisdiction whenever it suits them (without any reference to same sex legislation). Let me quote (without omission):

"The Federal government legislates in provincial jurisdiction all the time (e.g. health care, education, etc.). " - Fortunato

In THAT context, I am still correct. As I am in everything else that I posted.


Stop making things up, and learn to read.

F.

[langeweile]

Technically, in those areas the federal government is bribing the the provinces to do what they want and/or threatenning to withhold past bribes if they don't. If Ralph wants to go his own way on health care, all he has to do is be prepared to lose the billions the feds currently give him for health care.

I think Alberta is about the only province that could sustain itself, quiet well without any federal funds.

[Fortunato]

The fact that you screwed yourself up in the same post says a lot about you.


bbk

Ah... another post-script edit/addition. And how, exactly, did I "screw myself up" in your little brain? By (1) pointing out to Mr. Someone that governments (especially the Federal government) routinely pass legislation outside of its' jurisdiction, despite his suggestion that this could not happen? Or (2) in explaining that the Provinces do indeed have a constitutional interest in "marriage", and could use the NWS clause according to their jurisdiction, again same sex or not?

Because, irrespective of your little fantasies... that was ALL that was said. And it's ALL still true.



You really should take the pills the "brain doctor" gives you....

[Fortunato]

I think Alberta is about the only province that could sustain itself, quiet well without any federal funds.

True... but you should ask yourself why taxes paid to support health care or education should be considered "federal funds" to begin with. Completely inappropriate, IMO.

Best regards,

F.

[K Douglas]

depends how they market it - it would as "lookout for the alliance - sure they will start with gay marriage- but they have other things on their social agenda they are not telling you"

Please enlighten me. BTW, they are called the Conservatives now.

[K Douglas]

Harper's thinly disguised contempt of gays does not play well here in Ontario, maybe in Alberta but not here. Harper will be obliterated in an election called on this issue, hoisted on his own pitard.
This minority govt game will be won by the team who makes the fewest mistakes. Harper just coughed up the puck to Martin.

Contempt of gays - A little extreme aren't we? Just because he doesn't support changing the traditional definition of marriage - a union between a man and a woman - he hates gays. Intelligent!

[someone]

I think Alberta is about the only province that could sustain itself, quiet well without any federal funds.

As things stand, I agree but don't forget, if federal taxes were not as high as they are in order to transfer money to the provinces, the provinces would be able to raise their own taxes to finance these programs to the levels individual provinces (and their voters) thought was worth well.

Is this an example of thread drift or what :-)

[yychobbyist]

As things stand, I agree but don't forget, if federal taxes were not as high as they are in order to transfer money to the provinces, the provinces would be able to raise their own taxes to finance these programs to the levels individual provinces (and their voters) thought was worth well.

Is this an example of thread drift or what :-)

Not true at all (except the part about thread drift). The population base of all provinces with the exception of Ontario, Quebec and maybe B.C. just make sustainabiltiy impossible. Here's where you guys with all the population get to pay for being able to chose the government for the rest of us.

[someone]

Not true at all (except the part about thread drift). The population base of all provinces with the exception of Ontario, Quebec and maybe B.C. just make sustainabiltiy impossible. Here's where you guys with all the population get to pay for being able to chose the government for the rest of us.

First of all, it is not population that is important so much as per capita income. As someone else pointed out, Alberta could definitely afford to province their own education (it is actually only at the post secondary level and in areas of job training that the federal contributes much to education anyway) and health care. Once BC recovers from past bad government, they will clearly return to have status and not have problems in this regard.

You are right in suggesting that there is some implicit redistribution involved in federal cost sharing programs (I assume that is what you mean to suggest as it makes more sense that talking about population). Whether or not there should be redistribution between have and have not provinces is a matter of opinion. However, if there is going to be such redistribution I would say that it should be through the equalization program so that provinces can set their own spending priorities. One would assume that provincial governments elected in those provinces are in a better position to decide how their citizens what the money spent.

[red]

does alberta have its own provincial police or does the rcmp take care of that in alta?

[red]

Please enlighten me. BTW, they are called the Conservatives now.


Try meditation.


with respect to that party - I call them the Alliance. Thats really who they are- they just took over the PC party. Oh, should I let them call their union of the two parties whatever they have decided?

[someone]

does alberta have its own provincial police or does the rcmp take care of that in alta?

If I recall correctly, like most provinces they contract the RCMP. Many provinces find it cheaper. Some years ago, Newfoundland wanted to expand their RNC to eventually replace the RCMP in areas of the province not covered by the RNC but they found it was much more expensive than just contracting the RCMP

[red]

If I recall correctly, like most provinces they contract the RCMP. Many provinces find it cheaper. Some years ago, Newfoundland wanted to expand their RNC to eventually replace the RCMP in areas of the province not covered by the RNC but they found it was much more expensive than just contracting the RCMP

so how is that cost factored in? as part of the transfers? not sure why alta can't pay for its own cops like in ontario or que.

[Fortunato]

Not true at all (except the part about thread drift). The population base of all provinces with the exception of Ontario, Quebec and maybe B.C. just make sustainabiltiy impossible. Here's where you guys with all the population get to pay for being able to chose the government for the rest of us.

By and large, the Canada Health Transfer, Canada Social Transfer, and Health Reform Transfer follow the population very closely. Of the $40.7 billion that the Government collects, and then returns to the provinces (with their conditions), here are samples of the breakdown... compared to population statistics:

Ontario $16.4 billion (40%, vs population of 38%)
Alberta $4.2 billion (10%, vs. population of 10%)
PEI $0.157 billion (.3%, vs. population of .5%)
Nova Scotia $1.2 billion (2.9%, vs. popultion of 3%)
New Brunswick $.88 billion (2.1%, vs. population of 2.5%)
British Columbia $5.3 billion (13%, vs. population of 13%)
...


Yes, there are additional "equalisation" transfers beyond this... but that is a separate matter. There is no reason that THIS "hostage" money could not be taxed directly against the provincial populations by the provinces, rather than have the Federal Government "help" them.

There is NO reason for the Federal Government to be collecting $40.7 billion in taxes for purposes outside of their jurisdiction.


Best regards,

F.

[someone]

so how is that cost factored in? as part of the transfers? not sure why alta can't pay for its own cops like in ontario or que.

All I know is that provinces have contracts with the RCMP so they are paying for these services. There may be an implicit subsidy built into the contracts that I am not aware of. One disadvantage of these contracts involves occasional disputes over priorities for law enforcement. I guess the biggest example of was during probation when Saskatchewan decided that the RCMP was not active enough in enforcing their probation laws and set up their own provincial force which was disbanded after probation.

[Fortunato]

so how is that cost factored in? as part of the transfers? not sure why alta can't pay for its own cops like in ontario or que.

The cities have their own police forces, I believe.


Best regards,

F.

[red]

The cities have their own police forces, I believe.


Best regards,

F.
yes- but no provincial force. so the rcmp is servicing the rural areas and smaller towns

[Fortunato]

yes- but no provincial force. so the rcmp is servicing the rural areas and smaller towns

I believe that's true... as well as whatever they feel is necessary within the city (RCMP jurisdiction is Canada-wide, and they do more than just community policing). Remember, though, that a LOT of that is "politics"... and the RCMP has been there forever (way before it was a province)....

If your point is that the province should be paying for them for "localised services", though... I most thoroughly agree....

Best regards,

F.

[red]

If your point is that the province should be paying for them for "localised services", though... I most thoroughly agree....

Best regards,

F.

yes- that is my point. Of course they may already be paying for it- I just wondered how it worked

[sizematters]

Contempt of gays - A little extreme aren't we? Just because he doesn't support changing the traditional definition of marriage - a union between a man and a woman - he hates gays. Intelligent!

1) whose tradition?
2) traditions change

My Conservative MP extends the 'traditional definition of marriage' as "...a LIFELONG union between one man and one woman..."

The Conservatives belong to another age. It is clear why they dropped the 'Progressive' part of their name.

The Conservatives have done nothing to earn my vote.