Re: Why would anyone tust the Liberals, the NDP or the Bloc?
Best examplefied as the grasshopper in Aesop's fable.
Best examplefied as the grasshopper in Aesop's fable.
Why would anyone trust the Liberals, the NDP or the Bloc?
- Thread starter The Old Medic
- Start date
Re: Why would anyone tust the Liberals, the NDP or the Bloc?
It must be nice to be so high above all the others
Ditto!
Re: Why would anyone tust the Liberals, the NDP or the Bloc?
That's quite a childish view.
That's quite a childish view.
Canada is a corp. set up for profit. You the people are the source of this income.
the government is not yours.
Here in BC, The Government takes in 2.5 Billion a day but they claim to be broke.
The HST is one billion a day.
We the people do not have a proper Constitution.
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
10th December, 1990
The Honourable Mr. Justice, E.A. Marshall
Justice of The Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
E. Molstad, Esq.
For the Defendant
F. Wall
For the plaintiffs
Official Court Recorder
THE COURT: Thank you. Well, as you suggested and conceded Ms. Wall, it appears clear to me that the Statement of Claim must be struck out -- that legal proceedings are not the correct forum to seek the relief which has been sought. Counsel for Mr. Littlechild has outlined the law. The Statement of Claim alleges a failure on the part of Mr. Littlechild to consult with the constituency members and a failure on his part to account to them, further failing to ascertain their views in voting for the government's goods and services tax and failing to adequately represent their views in his voting for the government's goods and services tax. It appears that the action is a claim of a breach of duty on the part of the M.P. of the Plaintiffs. It seems clear on the authorities and I note in Roman Corporation which has been cited, that if I have any doubt on this application, as to whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action, I must give the benefit of that doubt to the Plaintiffs and refuse the application and leave the matter to be decided at a trial. However I am satisfied the Plaintiffs have no cause of action against the Defendant. I know of no legal duty on an elected representative at any level of government to consult with his constituents or determine their views. While such an obligation may generally be considered desirable, there is no legal requirement. I adopt the quotation from the trial in the Roman Corporation case, where he said:
"It is of the essence of our parliament system of government that our elected representatives should be able to perform their duties courageously and resolutely in what they consider to be the best interests of Canada, free from any worry of being called to account anywhere except in parliament."
So, it appears to me that the only remedy existing for the Plaintiffs is the remedy provided by our Constitution in the right to vote in a future election. I note also that the prayer for relief gives some difficulty. They request an Order of the Court recalling the Defendant to account to the Plaintiffs in his constituency for his actions in parliament. I would be inclined to strike the Statement of Claim on that paragraph as well. But I note they do make a prayer for such other relief as the Court shall deem just which probably is general enough that the action could not be struck out on that account alone. So I am satisfied that no court can compel the Defendant to account to his constituents and just to show you what really occurs in this application, Ms. Wall, what I am really assuming for the moment is that everything you have said in the Statement of Claim is correct. Even if that is all true the Court can't give you assistance because in the drafting and the exercise in the use of our constitution through the decades, it has been the wisdom of our Fathers of Confederation and others that M.P. 's must be given a right to carry out their duties without any worry about being called to account during their term of office. That is the way our constitution was drafted and I must take judicial notice of the Act - - which relates to Members of Parliament, the Parliament of Canada Act, that the members of the House of Commons enjoy all the privileges and immunities of Members of Parliament, Parliament of the United Kingdom. So, under the circumstances I am dismissing -- or I am allowing the
application to strike but the Statement of Claim and it will be struck out accordingly.
the government is not yours.
Here in BC, The Government takes in 2.5 Billion a day but they claim to be broke.
The HST is one billion a day.
We the people do not have a proper Constitution.
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
10th December, 1990
The Honourable Mr. Justice, E.A. Marshall
Justice of The Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
E. Molstad, Esq.
For the Defendant
F. Wall
For the plaintiffs
Official Court Recorder
THE COURT: Thank you. Well, as you suggested and conceded Ms. Wall, it appears clear to me that the Statement of Claim must be struck out -- that legal proceedings are not the correct forum to seek the relief which has been sought. Counsel for Mr. Littlechild has outlined the law. The Statement of Claim alleges a failure on the part of Mr. Littlechild to consult with the constituency members and a failure on his part to account to them, further failing to ascertain their views in voting for the government's goods and services tax and failing to adequately represent their views in his voting for the government's goods and services tax. It appears that the action is a claim of a breach of duty on the part of the M.P. of the Plaintiffs. It seems clear on the authorities and I note in Roman Corporation which has been cited, that if I have any doubt on this application, as to whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action, I must give the benefit of that doubt to the Plaintiffs and refuse the application and leave the matter to be decided at a trial. However I am satisfied the Plaintiffs have no cause of action against the Defendant. I know of no legal duty on an elected representative at any level of government to consult with his constituents or determine their views. While such an obligation may generally be considered desirable, there is no legal requirement. I adopt the quotation from the trial in the Roman Corporation case, where he said:
"It is of the essence of our parliament system of government that our elected representatives should be able to perform their duties courageously and resolutely in what they consider to be the best interests of Canada, free from any worry of being called to account anywhere except in parliament."
So, it appears to me that the only remedy existing for the Plaintiffs is the remedy provided by our Constitution in the right to vote in a future election. I note also that the prayer for relief gives some difficulty. They request an Order of the Court recalling the Defendant to account to the Plaintiffs in his constituency for his actions in parliament. I would be inclined to strike the Statement of Claim on that paragraph as well. But I note they do make a prayer for such other relief as the Court shall deem just which probably is general enough that the action could not be struck out on that account alone. So I am satisfied that no court can compel the Defendant to account to his constituents and just to show you what really occurs in this application, Ms. Wall, what I am really assuming for the moment is that everything you have said in the Statement of Claim is correct. Even if that is all true the Court can't give you assistance because in the drafting and the exercise in the use of our constitution through the decades, it has been the wisdom of our Fathers of Confederation and others that M.P. 's must be given a right to carry out their duties without any worry about being called to account during their term of office. That is the way our constitution was drafted and I must take judicial notice of the Act - - which relates to Members of Parliament, the Parliament of Canada Act, that the members of the House of Commons enjoy all the privileges and immunities of Members of Parliament, Parliament of the United Kingdom. So, under the circumstances I am dismissing -- or I am allowing the
application to strike but the Statement of Claim and it will be struck out accordingly.
Re: Why would anyone tust the Liberals, the NDP or the Bloc?
How is social democracy even comparable to that? Yes, it means higher taxes, but for everyone. Everyone has to work for it.
How is social democracy even comparable to that? Yes, it means higher taxes, but for everyone. Everyone has to work for it.
Correction: While the Bloc and NDP stood their ground and voted as they said they would, The Liberals under the leadership of Dion and Iggy (Mostly under Dion) ~ They'd either two-face and vote opposite of what they said they would, thus supporting the Cons, or walk-out or simply not show up to vote, thus allowing the Cons to out-vote the other parties...... why?
Because Dion and Iggy both knew that it would draw out another election and they would lose again...... which happened anyways.
Again, Correction: They did attempt to invoke a non-confidence vote and lead to a Coalition, which in turn got Harper to shut down the government to avoid it...... and as mentioned above, all the other times when they were going to call for a non-confidence, the Liberals turned chicken-sh*t at the last minute and either walked out or didn't show up to vote, thus not doing their jobs by representing their voters and that's why the Liberals have landed where they are now.
You have quite the selective memory.
Not quite.... the last election had nothing to do with a Coalition and the only true outcome out of the last election was that most people were fed up with the Liberals, their lack of plans for the nation & their dumbass leaders...... and as it goes for the Bloc, I can't see any real evidence or information showing why people in Quebec would suddenly turn their backs on them other then that the NDP made a far better sales pitch, while the rest of the nation whom didn't want the Cons to get their vote, turned to the NDP.
You're correct..... nobody can beat them, nor can anyone beat the Cons..... which is why in my view, they're both tied. The only thing that separated the Cons from the Libs, is the Conservatives' consistency and them actually having an election platform...... but that doesn't excuse any of the crap the Cons pulled over the last number of years while in power.
Once you actually have facts and show you know what you're talking about, come back and let us know.
Nor did the other parties during the last coalition attempt.... in regards to those wonderful facts you speak of, how about you show me where they did.
The FACT is, the Liberals and NDP were forming a Coalition together, with the backup support of the Bloc to vote in favor of their proposals for a period of time. The Bloc held no power in any meaning of the word. The moment the Bloc didn't vote in favor for something the NDP or Liberals proposed, the Coalition would have automatically failed, dissolved and we would have gone to another election. If the Bloc attempted to blackmail this coalition into doing something that could have threatened the unity of the nation, once again, the Coalition would have been dissolved and we'd head to an election.
Nothing would have happened other then have the chance of work actually being done in our government and a delay in having another election.
So unless you can show me facts stating otherwise, you don't know wtf you're talking about.
The NDP, yes..... the Bloc, no. The Bloc were only there supporting the Coalition from the outside. Again, you speak of facts..... so how about you show those facts.
Which in our system of Government and within a Minority Government, is perfectly legal to do and has been done in the past..... that's how our system works. In a minority government, it is required for one party to work with one or more other parties to hold a majority vote in order to get things done. The Conservatives had continually tried to go at it alone with thug tactics and expected a functioning minority government by doing so, which is why so many elections continued to occur. The opposition parties were in their full legal right to try and work together and form a Coalition in order to make the government work if the Conservatives were unwilling to do so...... THAT'S HOW IT WORKS!
Educate yourself.
Again, you show your ignorance. Indeed the Liberals played a part in bringing in the last election, but it was the Conservatives who created the election before that. They called for an election while Dion lead because they felt they could gain a few more seats and thus, a Majority. They got a couple more seats but still ended up with a minority government with the promise to start working more with the other parties, then on the first day back, Harper tossed a bunch more crap at the other parties, attempting to force their hand, which brought about the Coalition plans.
You obviously have stepped way out of your element here and really have no understanding of what you're talking about.
:roll:
Right..... rather then ranting on about things you claim you think you know, how about you start supplying some of those facts you speak of? Show us your sources that back up your so-called facts..... show us you actually know what you're talking about..... otherwise get back to focusing on your own screwed up government & the problems within..... like your teabaggers and idiot republicans like Palin & Trump :roll: :lol:
That's a very generous interpretation of history. The MO of the NDP and Bloc was to oppose any and everything forwarded by the gvt and to make a big show of it in order to pander to their supporters... Both of the aforementioned parties raced to be the first to speak-out in order to leave the real decision to the last minority partner.
In the end, it doesn't really matter because any sincere opposition by the NDP, Bloc and Libs would have had to be a coordinated effort in order to have any impact... Layton and the Bloc knew this and that's why all of their chest-thumping was nothing more than show.
No.. My memory is very good. As I had mentioned above, the Bloc and Layton were not good for anything more than a lot of hot air; in fact, if memory serves, I believe that Layton made a big show about desperately wanting to go over to Afghanistan to "talk some sense into those Taliban fellows"... At the time, there was some very serious financial support in my area of Western Canada to charter a plane to take ole Smilin' Jack over to Kandahar before he could change his mind.
The point being, the NDP is nothing but show and that's no different than all of the chest-thumping that Layton has made a career of.
I won't disagree with you on any of this. To be perfectly honest, the results that wiped-out the Bloc was straight out of left-field. I don't know a single person that saw that coming.
I thought it was patently obvious that conservatives are the least trustworthy party of the bunch. They're the republican-lite, so they get first place in the game of douchebaggery. See the Canada post fiasco as example #1.
I agree about Canada Post. If Harper had any balls he would have introduced back to work legislation after the first walk out and invoked closure to make sure there was no hold up of mail delivery. Canadians must not be held hostage by a union that is already grossly over paid.
Canadians were just fine until the lockout. The rotating strike wasn't harming the economy, it was the lockout.
So if you care so deeply about all of those poor, charitable businesses being taken advantage of, well you can point your piddly finger at the corporation, not the union.
Harper should have taken it one step further and announced a RFQ process to privatize another element of CanPost
That would put Harper in a lot of bad blood, considering 70% of canadians do not want to privatize mail delivery.
I think Harper wants to give the conservatives a fighting chance for the next election instead of throwing it away to the NDP at the whim of the extremist ideologists, such as yourself.
The union vote isn't big enough to determine the outcome of an election, besides, 60% of the pop didn't vote for him anyway... The 70% figure is probably mostly those folks that didn't vote con to begin with.
Only 17% of the population voted for Harper. Granted, many of those polled on the Postal strike question probably didn't vote.
Well, not all of the population can vote, 24.3% of registered voters cast ballots for the Conservatives.
