TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Tories slammed for court program cut
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Tories slammed for court program cut

from today's Toronto Star, but off the Canadian Press wire...the last few paragraphs, I find to be the most compelling points (Danny Williams' remarks re: legal aid in general and the VP of the Cdn. Bar Assoc).

quote:

Tories slammed for court program cut Sep. 27, 2006. 07:18 PM ALEXANDER PANETTA CANADIAN PRESS OTTAWA � The Conservatives are under fire for killing a legal-aid program that has assisted Canadian minority groups in a series of historic court victories over the last three decades. The cancellation of the Court Challenges Program was slammed Wednesday by the country's largest legal organization, opposition parties, and at least one Tory provincial government. The Trudeau-era program has helped fund successful court challenges that broadened the rights of Canadian seniors, women, the disabled, homosexuals, religious groups, aboriginals, and minority-language groups. The federal Tories announced this week that cutting the program would save taxpayers $5.6 million over two years. Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams � a provincial Tory and a lawyer � called the cuts worrisome and distanced himself from the ``right-wing" federal Conservatives. The opposition Liberals noted the irony of the cuts coming just months after a famous pre-election quip by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. "He said, `Don't worry, if you elect me as a prime minister, the courts will hold me in check'," Liberal MP Omar Alghabra told a news conference. "(Then) what does he do? He cancels the Court Challenges Program, which is supposed to hold him in check." The program helped fund court battles that gave seniors employment-insurance benefits, and gave deaf people the right to get sign-language service in hospitals. It helped women win pay-equity cases, and simplified the necessary argument for a sexual-assault conviction. It funded cases that opened schools for French-Canadians, guaranteed English-language rights in Quebec, and helped affirm religious freedoms like Sikh children's right to carry a kirpan. It helped homosexuals win equality protection under the Charter of Rights in landmark 1990s cases that led to a slew of new legal benefits and eventually paved the path to same-sex marriage. But the program has long drawn the ire of the Tories, who already killed it in 1992 the last time they were in power. The Liberals revived it in 1994 upon returning to office, and its continued existence has long been a sore spot to conservatives. Many conservatives have denounced the program as biased, saying it supports liberal causes while consistently denying funding for things like anti-abortion cases. Harper's right-hand man wrote his doctoral dissertation and several other papers about the program in his previous career as an academic. Now chief of staff to the prime minister, Ian Brodie published one paper titled "Do the `Haves' Still Come Out Ahead in Canada?" "Three interests � official language minority groups, feminists, and homosexual rights groups � have been particularly successful at pursuing their objectives through the courts," Brodie wrote when he was a professor at the University of Western Ontario. "All three of these interests consider themselves traditionally `disadvantaged' groups in Canadian society, and so their success is puzzling." The paper, which he co-authored in 2003 just before joining Harper's staff, suggests "a solution to this puzzle." The paper concludes that the so-called "haves" really do come out ahead in our legal system � and that's because the Court Challenges Program has simply helped reverse the definition. "In other words, these self-described `disadvantaged' groups win because under the new conditions they are now among the `haves'," Brodie writes in the paper, co-authored with the University of Calgary's Ted Morton. "Being among the `haves' has given them the resources required to become repeat players and succeed in judicial politics." One Conservative government official was far more blunt when asked about the program Wednesday. If there are any future injustices, he said, offended groups can simply use the news media or the political process to pressure government. Or they can launch lawsuits with their own money. "From a small-c conservative standpoint, (people wonder) why are we paying people to sue the government?" said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "They can raise their own money." He said the program exposes a key philosophical difference between Liberals and Conservatives. "(Liberals feel) citizens are clients of the state, and (they feel), `We better keep those clients, so we'd better stand up for them'." He added that, because the Charter of Rights is now a quarter-century old, legal rights for feminists, homosexuals, and minorities are well-entrenched in our justice system. But Newfoundland's Conservative premier weighed in against the federal Conservative government. Williams distanced his provincial Progressive Conservatives from the federal Tories. "In my opinion, it shows the difference between Conservatives: true right-wing Conservatives and Progressive Conservatives," Williams said in St. John's. "You know, when you start taking away funding from minority groups just because they're going to sue government, that means you're saying, `We're not going to give you any money if we've done something wrong to allow you to sue us.' "So then (do) you take away legal aid at some point down the road so people who commit criminal offences don't have the right to have legal counsel?" The Canadian Bar Association � which has 36,000 members � said the government has been dishonest in characterizing the program. "They're making it sound like these fringe groups were the only ones accessing it," said Guy Joubert, a vice-president at the association. "That's definitely not the case. . . . What this move has done is silence the voices of marginalized Canadians."

Re: Tories slammed for court program cut

Imho, it was a big mistake to vote this party into power (for a variety of reasons)

Yea, I mean, who would want a party that is doing what they'd said they'd do?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Yea, I mean, who would want a party that is doing what they'd said they'd do?

I take issue not with whether they are delivering on their election promises but rather with what those promises are amounting to in reality......Essentially, the 'get-tough-on-crime' approach got them voted into power but as a student of criminology I understand that this approach doesn't work in practice.

To each his own bud

Why does he not just come out and say what he wants to do?

Just amazing what his vision of Canada is.

quote:

Originally posted by cenik I take issue not with whether they are delivering on their election promises but rather with what those promises are amounting to in reality......

Again, far be it for me to question anyone that actually follows through on their word or actually get things done.
We, or course, could be sitting with another government for 12 years with their thumb up their ass on anything important to move us forward.

quote:

Essentially, the 'get-tough-on-crime' approach got them voted into power but as a student of criminology I understand that this approach doesn't work in practice.

What?
Do you agree that the useless, government-cash-grab, gun registry is the answer?
That's just punishing the innocent more than the criminals AND leaves them the ones with the guns!
What would you suggest then?

quote:

To each his own bud

Definately.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Again, far be it for me to question anyone that actually follows through on their word or actually get things done. We, or course, could be sitting with another government for 12 years with their thumb up their ass on anything important to move us forward.

I don't think cenik has anything against people following through on their word. I believe his problem is with what that 'word' is. In this case, trying to take away key program for 'disadvantaged' groups.

Obviously we like politicians to keep their promises, but were these sort of cuts in his election campaign, or are we just learning about them now? Were we shown that Harper was tough on crime, and against such social programs, or were we just shown the crime portion of his agenda?

As somebody who is not directly affected by these cuts, I would still like to see the involved groups get the help they need.

quote:

The program helped fund court battles that gave seniors employment-insurance benefits, and gave deaf people the right to get sign-language service in hospitals. It helped women win pay-equity cases, and simplified the necessary argument for a sexual-assault conviction. It funded cases that opened schools for French-Canadians, guaranteed English-language rights in Quebec, and helped affirm religious freedoms like Sikh children's right to carry a kirpan. It helped homosexuals win equality protection under the Charter of Rights in landmark 1990s cases that led to a slew of new legal benefits and eventually paved the path to same-sex marriage.

How can you be against any of these causes, except same-sex marraige (which is our own business)? It also seems as if Harper is further trying to cozy up to Quebec.

Keep in mind that this program cut was a bone tossed to his core constituents; in this case, conservative Christian and family action groups. These groups have complained about the Court Challenges Program for years because they come out on the short end of the stick.

I've had the opportunity to debate both Ian Brodie and Ted Morton (now a Calgary MLA) on this issue. Both seem to have a poor understanding as to what the CCP is for. This program is designed for groups to challenge the existing definitions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Conservative groups are ineligible for funding because they don't challenge anything in the Charter. They're trying to uphold the existing definitions (or roll them back), hence they must foot their own bills when they wish to participate in such cases.

The program could have been reformed without being scrapped. Give opposition groups funding (it doesn't necessarily have to be equal funding). The only reason the CCP was scrapped is to keep liberal action groups (most notably gay rights groups) out of the Supreme Court of Canada.

I hope Focus on the Family, REAL Women of Canada, the Catholic Civil Rights League, and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada enjoy their bone - it will be the only one they get!

quote:

Originally posted by Orko It also seems as if Harper is further trying to cozy up to Quebec.

oh no, quite the contrary with these specific cuts.

those funds helped keep open the only french hospital in Ottawa for example and it helps french minorities across Canada to fight against the federal behemoth.

How can you justify this cut, 6 millions? when you have a 13,200 millions surplus?!

its really crazy

Why should the GOVERNMENT fund the ability of groups to sue the GOVERNMENT? Its pure lunacy! If they have a problem then they should raise capital for their cause like anyone else would. Whats next? asking the tobacco companies to finance the people who are suing them?

As for the cuts when there is a 13 billion surplus. Keep in mind that $13 B surplus means they have 13 billion too much of our money. At the same time, this shouldnt give a government carte blanche to waste money. The government should still only spend on what is needed regardless of a surplus. They just handed that surpluss over to pay the debt which is THE BEST POSSIBLE USE THEY COULD EVER HAVE FOR IT.

Why? Because interest payments for the debt is the single biggest expense for the government. $1 OUT OF EVERY $3 GOES TO THE INTEREST PAYMENTS FOR THE DEBT. Remember thats just the interest payment, so the debt doesnt even go down. Just imagine how much money wed have to spend on social programmes in the future if we focussed on paying of the debt today? But thats something left wing people dont seem to understand. They just want to spend spend spend until we are bankrupt.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Why should the GOVERNMENT fund the ability of groups to sue the GOVERNMENT? Its pure lunacy! If they have a problem then they should raise capital for their cause like anyone else would. Whats next? asking the tobacco companies to finance the people who are suing them?

A tobacco company is not the government, and is not supposed to create equal opportunities for its citizens/customers.

This fund, as I can see it, was responsible for helping those who are disadvantaged by the very government that they pay taxes to. The whole point of the Canadian ideal, and system is to help those who would not otherwise be able to get help.

A prime example in this case is the income inequality that women have faced, and continue to face. If the government is paying them less, which they have done in the past, it should be up to them to help rectify the problem. In your case, the women being paid less, will never had the money to launch a legal battle to even get back on equal footing. That's like removing some body's arm in a fight, when they are already missing a leg.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko The whole point of the Canadian ideal, and system is to help those who would not otherwise be able to get help.

Who came up with this definition/ideal? (Meaning, how did this idea come to be a Canadian value?)

jayx1 so following your logic, we should abolish the human right commissions because they also do assume the legal fees for someone who has been victim of human rights violation (sex, color, age, etc)???

It does not make sense.

If you're a minority, there's no way you can afford a legal battle with the federal unless they do provide the money to level your chances.

quote:

Originally posted by malek If you're a minority, there's no way you can afford a legal battle with the federal unless they do provide the money to level your chances.

aaahhh because all minorities are poor and have no recourse to legal funds.... (note the sarcasm)

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 aaahhh because all minorities are poor and have no recourse to legal funds.... (note the sarcasm)

no, because you know that the govt has deep pockets and will spend at will.

So why not take some of that money and fund the plaintiff and shorten the whole case?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Why should the GOVERNMENT fund the ability of groups to sue the GOVERNMENT? Its pure lunacy! If they have a problem then they should raise capital for their cause like anyone else would. Whats next? asking the tobacco companies to finance the people who are suing them?

becuase the gov't REPRESENTS THE PEOPLE. It exists, because we want it to exist and it exists to SERVE the people. We give up unlimited freedoms for other protections.

How can one person, or a small group, take on the gov't when the gov't has virtually unlimited access to the capital required to fend off challenges (since WE, as taxpayers, end up footing the gov't bill).

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 As for the cuts when there is a 13 billion surplus. Keep in mind that $13 B surplus means they have 13 billion too much of our money. At the same time, this shouldnt give a government carte blanche to waste money. The government should still only spend on what is needed regardless of a surplus. They just handed that surpluss over to pay the debt which is THE BEST POSSIBLE USE THEY COULD EVER HAVE FOR IT. Why? Because interest payments for the debt is the single biggest expense for the government. $1 OUT OF EVERY $3 GOES TO THE INTEREST PAYMENTS FOR THE DEBT. Remember thats just the interest payment, so the debt doesnt even go down. Just imagine how much money wed have to spend on social programmes in the future if we focussed on paying of the debt today? But thats something left wing people dont seem to understand. They just want to spend spend spend until we are bankrupt.

LOL...I've said the *exact* same thing before...but I don't ever recall you supporting debt pay down with a surplus (but prove me wrong, if I'm wrong).

when it has been proposed/considered by the Liberals or here that we should pay down the debt with the surplus, did you not cry foul, stating that the gov't should return the money they 'stole' back to the people?

I've always supported debt pay down as a priority...a priority over GST cuts and even income tax cuts for middle and high income earners.

btw...the reason I pointed to the end of the article is because the VP of the Bar Assoc. stated that the CCP has NOT just been used by small, special interest groups.

Everyone is entitled to equality under the law and that should, IMHO, include cases where the defendent is the gov't.

Not providing any funding is basically preventing people from challenging the status quo...and when that status quo has historically favoured 'able-bodied white Christian conservative men', it means people of a differing philosophy don't have the means the challenge that status quo, even when our Charter provides that we do have equality under the law.

i.e. it's equal on paper, but not in reality.

Harper does indeed appear to be throwing a bone to his right-wing party faithful. Take away, or severly restrict, the ability of your foes to challenge you and you've won before the battle starts, right?

as for debt repayment, what a lack of vision by the conservatives!!! its as bad as those 400 ralphie dollars!!

the country severly needs some infrastructure overhaul, how about returning the money to the provinces to restablish the 93 cuts.

quote:

Originally posted by malek as for debt repayment, what a lack of vision by the conservatives!!! its as bad as those 400 ralphie dollars!! the country severly needs some infrastructure overhaul, how about returning the money to the provinces to restablish the 93 cuts.

Lack of vision? WHAT? Thats the best long term vision any government could ever have. Think about what we could do with the ONE THIRD OF ALL TAX DOLLARS being spent just to pay interest on the debt? Just imagine how much infrastructure we could afford?

And for the record ive always supported a combination of modest tax cuts and solid debt reduction. Both will get the economy moving. One in the short term and the other in the long term. And malek, i bet if you recieved the 400 klein bucks youd be loving it. Why do people complain when they take away AND complain when they give back?

As for the court challenges cut. I dont buy that most people fighting the government are poor and disadvantaged. The old stereotype that miniorities are piss poor and cant afford to feed themselves doesnt fly anymore.

some of the richest people i know are either gay, asian or jewish for example.

And for those who need it, we already have the human rights commission. Which i might add is very discriminatory against white people who have legitimate claims! Why should the government finance lawyers for special interest groups? Its insane!

For the record, I am against the court program cut, however, if the 'cause' is 'just' enough, there are others (charities, rights groups, etc) with plenty of money to fund court challenges that they can turn to, esp. if it's controversial enough and draws enough media attention.

massive debt payments is useless and is the easiest way to shed away those kinds of monies... thus why the lack of vision.

say, intrest rates is 5%, if they built a highway/train/whatever to alleviate congestion problem in Toronto, enhance productivity (and GDP), wouldn't that be better?

How about we add to the equation, that salaries and materials paid to build these, will remain for the most part in Canada and that the kicker is the taxation money coming back. 1 billion project, doesn't really cost 1 billion, its less. Why don't we spend the money on needed infrastructures instead of having to borrow the money later when we'll have no choice to build them. Its a good time for Canada right now, but it won't last forever.

Plus you're saying intrested saved could pay alot of stuff later, you're right! Canada already paid 86 billions on its debt, take away that 13 billion, and you have 73 billion already paid, at 5% intrest rates, those savings account to 3.65B$ a year which is a good chunk of that 13 billion. Why aren't those 3.65B$ spent on necessary things then?? it buys alot of subway stations and highway each year.

Finally, most of the intrest saved will be paid to Canadians which are the main debt holders, those intrest revenues are already taxed at 50%......and go back to the govt hehe.

malek, id hate to see your personal finances.

So your logic is that we keep throwing away 1/3 of all our money. Use the money we get by raising taxes to spend on salaries for people who will then get taxed to pay for the debt that we have to throw 1/3 away on?

The logic escapes me. Why not get rid of the debt now and that way in the future we will have a lot of money to play with? Alberta did it and look at them now! Even if the oil dries up tomorrow they are way ahead of the rest of us.

Its been proven time and time again that you cannot government spend your way into a better economy and it actually has a negative impact later on. The time has come NOW to pay for the errant ways of the 70s to mid 90s when governments spent like it was an unlimited resource. And that means we all have to sacrifice a little to do so.

But, the payoffs will be extraordinary at the end

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 ... As for the court challenges cut. I dont buy that most people fighting the government are poor and disadvantaged. The old stereotype that miniorities are piss poor and cant afford to feed themselves doesnt fly anymore. some of the richest people i know are either gay, asian or jewish for example. ...

LMAO

that ranks up there as one of the dumbest things you've ever said on this board.

while this isn't about the 'poor and disadvantaged' fighting the gov't (as the quote from the Bar Assoc. VP indicats), let's even follow your logic, or lack thereof...

so if the status quo has historically been of a white, consevative, Christian flavour...meaning that such people need do nothing but enjoy their current rights and freedoms...anyone challenging that status quo, in order to seek the same benefites, they should have to cough up all the money themselves to realize that equal treatment?

doesn't that strike you as somewhat unrealistic?

I will give the Tories one big *thumbs up* for choosing to pay down the debt with the surplus.

I'm still dismayed at the cuts to certain programs prior to them proposing (or even conceptualizing) replacements.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.