Canada Election 2015

[flar]

Originally Posted by geotag277

I never really understood the philosophy that says we need these departments advising the federal government on these things staffed to the brim with a plethora of individuals making six figures (some well over) in full time capacities.

If the government needs legal advice, it seems they could and should seek it on a case by case basis. Same with science. Same with anything really. Otherwise, the courts are doing what they should be doing, if a law is found in violation of the Charter, or some other federal precedent, it will be struck down.

Science departments, legal departments, advisory departments. These things are costing us millions and millions and millions of dollars. Where is the value-add?

Your ignorance is really on display here. You're truly clueless.

Do you really think an entity with a $290 billion budget doesn't need in-house advice and expertise?

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by flar

Your ignorance is really on display here. You're truly clueless.

Do you really think an entity with a $290 billion budget doesn't need in-house advice and expertise?

The amazing thing is posts like this are allowed to persist in an otherwise civil thread, and people like Lio and myself get suspended?

Those who are out of arguments attack the man. You seem so convinced in your own position and yet are totally unable to present an argument to justify this department's existence.

By the way, I never suggested eliminating the Justice Department, I am only questioning it's size and if it's entire function is entirely justified. If you can't handle a civil conversation about that, please exit stage left.

Again, Liberal supporters who only have two modes of thinking. Either a Department is entirely justified and the only course of action is to grow it indefinitely and never question it's purpose and function, or the person questioning it must be ridiculous. Very classic line of thinking from that party.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Migs

...and your poor hard done by incessant whining is getting tiresome. My advice, take care of yourself & your family & quit worrying so much about your first world problems. Face the facts, Harper has done a great job as PM & is likely going to win this election as well.


http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-20-countries-ranked-by-reputation-2015-7

Sure MIGS. How's the terrorist hunt in Saskatchewan going?

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Migs

A message from Hon Jason Kenney.

http://robertlibman.conservateur.ca/en/2...ge-from-minister-jason-kenney/#pq=cfjS1R

A message from the Hon Arnold Schwarzenegger.

http://www.troll.me/images/arnold-angry/put-that-cookie-down-you-motherfucker.jpg

[ssiguy]

You certainly need a Ministry of Justice it ensures, amongst other things, that all laws adhere to the Charter and Supreme court decisions. The problem is that Harper and company openly ignore them.

The best case in point is our new — law. The Supreme Court struck it down and Harper turns around and makes a law that flies in the face of the Supreme court decision. In Vancouver this resonates as the last law is what which forced — workers to work in the dangerous shadows is what led to the massacre of 70 women who when, quite literally, turned into a pigs breakfast.

You cannot expect a population, law enforcement, and other levels of government to adhere to laws that you have no intention of following. This is why the new law is ignored to the point of being non-existent. There isn't a single jurisdiction in the country that is employing this law as they know it will never stand up in court and puts — workers at risk in an already risky business.

When you ignore your own judicial advice and direction from the highest court in the land then laws go from being government policies to little more than suggestions. They begin to function like our speed limits..........because they are not enforced they are completely ignored bordering on becoming jokes.

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by geotag277

The amazing thing is posts like this are allowed to persist in an otherwise civil thread, and people like Lio and myself get suspended?

Those who are out of arguments attack the man. You seem so convinced in your own position and yet are totally unable to present an argument to justify this department's existence.

If I'm not mistaken, flar is a civil servant (or was at one point) so his views on subjects such as these should be taken with a grain of salt given the obvious bias present.

Not to say that I agree with you about redundancy of the justice department, I'd need more information on the subject to establish an opinion.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by geotag277

If the government needs legal advice, it seems they could and should seek it on a case by case basis. Same with science. Same with anything really. Otherwise, the courts are doing what they should be doing, if a law is found in violation of the Charter, or some other federal precedent, it will be struck down.

Science departments, legal departments, advisory departments. These things are costing us millions and millions and millions of dollars. Where is the value-add?

Holy —. I've been intentionally ignoring this thread because of how heated it's gotten but this is one of the most ill-informed posts I have ever read.

Working in public policy (albeit not at the federal level), do you know how often legal services are required in virtually EVERY aspect of policy development? Do you know how much this would cost if it were outsourced to private sector firms where lawyers are paid MUCH more than their in-house equivalents? Not to mention the value in having an in-house team that is involved in a program area throughout its evolution. Do you know how much it would cost in man hours and court times if we didn't bother with any of this and let politicians craft laws and have the courts figure it out after?

The functions you are talking about not only provide "value-add", but are very much necessary for government to develop any sort of defensible, fact-based policy.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

If I'm not mistaken, flar is a civil servant (or was at one point) so his views on subjects such as these should be taken with a grain of salt given the obvious bias present.

Not to say that I agree with you about redundancy of the justice department, I'd need more information on the subject to establish an opinion.

If anything I think his job would qualify him more than the average Joe to comment on it. I'd actually be curious to hear what he has to say to rebuff geotag's comments.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I remain unclear as to what they are expecting to achieve...

Merely enjoying the opportunity to vote while masked, since we can.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by niwell

Holy —. I've been intentionally ignoring this thread because of how heated it's gotten but this is one of the most ill-informed posts I have ever read.

Working in public policy (albeit not at the federal level), do you know how often legal services are required in virtually EVERY aspect of policy development? Do you know how much this would cost if it were outsourced to private sector firms where lawyers are paid MUCH more than their in-house equivalents? Not to mention the value in having an in-house team that is involved in a program area throughout its evolution. Do you know how much it would cost in man hours and court times if we didn't bother with any of this and let politicians craft laws and have the courts figure it out after?

The functions you are talking about not only provide "value-add", but are very much necessary for government to develop any sort of defensible, fact-based policy.

On the other hand, surely it's possible to conceive that these various legal divisions could potentially be over-staffed, or at least some of them?

I doubt that there is currently no blatant inefficiencies in Ontario's public sector machine... I'm pretty sure you've personally witnessed cases.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by lio45

On the other hand, surely it's possible to conceive that these various legal divisions could potentially be over-staffed, or at least some of them?

I doubt that there is currently no blatant inefficiencies in Ontario's public sector machine... I'm pretty sure you've personally witnessed cases.

In the case of legal services I'd say understaffed if anything. It sometimes irks me that the lawyers I've worked with make almost twice my salary, but they often work 20 hours a week more than me! It could be very different in the federal government of course.

But yes, just like almost any large organization inefficiencies exist. I can think of a couple areas off-hand. Although probably on the opposite end of the spectrum from legal divisions. But completely writing off advisory bodies within government would set a dangerous precedent IMO.

It's also worth noting that policy development in government often works in ebbs and tides. You can have very little work to do beyond research at times, and at other times it's a non-stop rush to meet approvals deadlines. In theory you could contract some of this out knowing that once a particular function is completed staffing requirements may drop (and the government does make extensive use of contracts). Having knowledgable staff on hand at all times makes more sense to me, at least.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by lio45

Merely enjoying the opportunity to vote while masked, since we can.

The stupidification of society continues, abetted by social media and fuelled by prejudice.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by niwell

Holy —. I've been intentionally ignoring this thread because of how heated it's gotten but this is one of the most ill-informed posts I have ever read.

Working in public policy (albeit not at the federal level), do you know how often legal services are required in virtually EVERY aspect of policy development? Do you know how much this would cost if it were outsourced to private sector firms where lawyers are paid MUCH more than their in-house equivalents? Not to mention the value in having an in-house team that is involved in a program area throughout its evolution. Do you know how much it would cost in man hours and court times if we didn't bother with any of this and let politicians craft laws and have the courts figure it out after?

The functions you are talking about not only provide "value-add", but are very much necessary for government to develop any sort of defensible, fact-based policy.

The Justice Department is 5000+ employees strong and costs almost a billion dollars a year. The contention was that Conservatives were spending too much money fighting Charter cases which ended up being about 4.7 million dollars in total over 15 cases.

This idea that we can never question the nature, function, return on investment, size, and value to the Canadian people of these giant behemoth organizations is toxic.

I understand how we currently do things. The contention is perhaps there is significant government waste in our standard operating procedure.

So far no one has presented any semblance of an argument to justify this department, in fact you yourself presented an argument for changing how it operates as the work required ebbs and flows with policy development.

If there are highly experienced civil servants in here who can articulate an actual net public benefit to this giant team of lawyers, until now they have not spoken up.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

The stupidification of society continues, abetted by social media and fuelled by prejudice.

Spineless authorities that accept unreasonable and undesirable accommodations that most people view as problematic can also fuel strife and racism among other nasty things.

I know what the next post will be and yes, sometimes it takes political courage to implement things when public opinion is against it but it happens to be the right thing to do.

This just doesn't appear to be a noble hill to die on.

[flar]

Originally Posted by geotag277

The amazing thing is posts like this are allowed to persist in an otherwise civil thread, and people like Lio and myself get suspended?

Those who are out of arguments attack the man. You seem so convinced in your own position and yet are totally unable to present an argument to justify this department's existence.

By the way, I never suggested eliminating the Justice Department, I am only questioning it's size and if it's entire function is entirely justified. If you can't handle a civil conversation about that, please exit stage left.

Again, Liberal supporters who only have two modes of thinking. Either a Department is entirely justified and the only course of action is to grow it indefinitely and never question it's purpose and function, or the person questioning it must be ridiculous. Very classic line of thinking from that party.

Sorry if it seems like I'm attacking you personally. You've been in the fray throughout the thread and I thought you could take it.

I did ask you a pretty good question though, and you didn't answer it.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by flar

Sorry if it seems like I'm attacking you personally. You've been in the fray throughout the thread and I thought you could take it.

I did ask you a pretty good question though, and you didn't answer it.

As I said, I am not advocating for it's complete dissolution.

I can take the attack on ideas if they are well supported. Your attacks were vacuous and lazy and more personal than anything.

If you have something of substance to contribute, now would be the time. You have been challenged repeated to articulate and justify the cost of this department, others have claimed you were somewhat of an expert on the matter, and all you have produced until now is a vacuous straw man question and personal insults. Colour me not impressed.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

You can be 100% sure the niqab business will show up. Harper and especially Duceppe will be delighted to bring it up.

Oh boy you betcha. Mulcair must be looking forward to that like a prostate check.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by flar

Sorry if it seems like I'm attacking you personally. You've been in the fray throughout the thread and I thought you could take it.

I did ask you a pretty good question though, and you didn't answer it.

My hat's off to you for not deleting his posts and suspending him

I would say niwell and you are obviously making a good case for a permanent in-house legal staff (I think we could all agree a permanent basis is required; the general job of lawmaking kinda demands it) but given the ebb and flow nature of the work load over time I think I'd rather be under-staffed than over-staffed since it seems that one of the two cases has to be inevitably picked.

Under-staffed, you can at least temporarily outsource work during busier times; over-staffed, you're paying people for nothing during the more idle times.

So, I'd say I can also see geotag's point here.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Spineless authorities that accept unreasonable and undesirable accommodations that most people view as problematic can also fuel strife and racism among other nasty things.

I know what the next post will be and yes, sometimes it takes political courage to implement things when public opinion is against it but it happens to be the right thing to do.

This just doesn't appear to be a noble hill to die on.

Well, we'll see what happens with the folks who come in with Guy Fawkes masks or potato bags over their heads. At the moment, I think the rules only apply to face veils, so people with other types of apparel could be in for an unpleasant surprise, although I doubt the polling station officers will push it that far.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Oh boy you betcha. Mulcair must be looking forward to that like a prostate check.

Or a root canal job...