would like to comment here today on the way the Minister of Finance seems to be going about the budgeting process. I base my remarks on his comments in front of this committee Feb. 27, as well as comments he has made over the last year.

Jim Flaherty is, first of all, making huge mistakes in determining what are high priority items and what are low priority items.

Second, he is planning to continue many of the wasteful and inefficient policies of his government.

And third, he is making poor-quality assumptions about both the current economic climate and the options available for government revenue.

I would like to comment on each of these three items.

First, priorities: Here last week, Mr. Flaherty made virtually no mention of the services that government must provide, or that government should provide.

This is very telling. Apparently, public services are not a priority for him.

They are, however, a priority for the Ontario public.

Recognizing this – because he does, after all, want to be Premier – Jim Flaherty has, at other times, set out his spending priorities. As described on his web site, these priorities are schools, hospitals, the environment, and caring for the vulnerable.

Of course he has offered few details except for his plan to put the homeless in jail.

If you know anything about jail, which Mr. Flaherty clearly doesn’t, this is an impressively stupid idea.

It’s not a crime to be poor. It’s not a crime to be homeless.

Our jails are overcrowded as it is. In most of them, there’s no programming to speak of. Correctional officers can get tuberculosis simply by going to work. Armed robbers are getting extra time knocked off their sentences because conditions inside are so horrendous.

The idea of putting homeless people behind bars is absolutely unreal.

Jim Flaherty says he wants to cut what he calls “non-priority” spending. Again, he won’t give details.

But it’s fair to assume that everything that’s not a priority is a non-priority. Let’s take a look at some of his “non-priorities.”

Right now, today Ontario’s stressed-out probation and parole officers have the highest caseloads of any in Canada.

Seven hundred people are supposed to keep tabs on over 70,000 convicted offenders serving sentences in our communities.

On average, they only have time to meet for 30 minutes a month with sex offenders. And sex offenders get more attention. Our officers have 15 minutes a month for other offenders. Sometimes it’s only two minutes.

But is Jim Flaherty talking about this? Is he talking about increasing the number of p&p officers and support staff to keep our communities safe?

No, he’s not. To him, it’s a “non-priority.”

Or look at food safety. Ontario used to have 150 permanent provincial meat inspectors. Now there are eight.

Ontario used to have 20 provincial fruit and vegetable inspectors. Now there are zero.

In November, the provincial auditor said, and I’m quoting, that

· “Food safety deficiencies that are defined as critical by the Ministry and could pose risks to human health were noted during annual licensing audits of abattoirs…. Such deficiencies include unsanitary food contact surfaces, rusty equipment, and the transportation of meat in non-refrigerated vehicles…. Newer testing methods allow bacterial, chemical, and other hazards to be detected easily and quickly. However, the Ministry did not have a process in place to randomly test meat from abattoirs for evidence of these hazards….”

Shocking stuff. But is Jim Flaherty talking about food safety? No, he’s not. To him, it’s a “non-priority.”

In the Ministry of Labour, the full complement of occupational health and safety inspectors is supposed to be about 280. We’re about 40 short, and we’ve been about 40 short for a long time.

These people do important work. Their job is to stop people from getting killed on the job, or having their arms ripped off, or getting occupational diseases.

But because of this government, thousands of workplaces are being ignored. Is this costing lives? Yes, it likely is.

But those lives are a “non-priority” to Jim Flaherty.

In November, the provincial auditor called the Ministry of Transportation on the carpet for mismanaging highway safety. Is Flaherty talking about this? No, he’s not.

Which brings me to my second main point. Instead of talking about improving services, Flaherty is talking about wasting more money through the magic of privatization.

It’s right there on his campaign web site. It says, "I am committed to privatization in order to provide a more efficient government.”

The only proper response to this is, “Huh?”

Since 1995, privatization has been the most disastrous policy of any provincial government in Ontario history.

In many cases, as the provincial auditor reported in November, private operators are charging the government two, three, and more times what it would cost to have accountable public employees do the same work.

In the Andersen Consulting fiasco, the Ministry of Community and Social Services paid the project manager $575 an hour to manage a computer system that still doesn’t work.

The provincial auditor said public service employees could have done the $200-million project for wages one-sixth of what Andersen charged.

Andersen employees billed the government an average of $24,000 each for personal expenses without receipts.

If this is supposed to be “efficient,” I’d hate to see what inefficient looks like.

The auditor said that highway maintenance cost more when performed by the private sector in three out of four cases he looked at.

When the Ministry of Health privatized our air ambulance system, they paid out over $2 million in severance to critical care flight paramedics just to have the same people come back to work at the same job for the private operator.

Our air ambulance system now costs more than ever –with no improvement in service!

That’s Jim Flaherty’s idea of “efficiency.”

It’s a joke. It’s not a funny joke, but it is a joke.

A budget that’s built around privatization is a budget that’s built around waste. The only way that privatization is efficient is as a method of transferring taxpayers’ dollars into the pockets of private business people.

Meanwhile, Flaherty says he can’t afford the services Ontarians need.

Jim Flaherty is like the guy who spends all day in the bar buying drinks for his buddies but won’t put food on the table for his kids.

Which brings me to my third point: revenue.

Government revenues this year will be over 20 per cent higher, in real terms, than they were in 1995.

Even without the $12 billion in annual revenue that they’ve blown out the window on tax cuts, this government is richer than any other government in Ontario history.

Yet Jim Flaherty is crying poor.

In his speech here last week, Flaherty said that private sector economists were predicting an average rate of real GDP growth for the year 2002 of 1.3 per cent.

I don’t know who these forecasters are. Perhaps they are forecasters like the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, which announced in November that the Canadian economy was in recession.

As we now know, there was no recession. But even when CIBC was saying there was, they were still predicting growth of 1.7 per cent for 2002.

I can’t afford the private sector economists anyway, so I’ll stick with the public sector ones.

In the United States, Alan Greenspan, head of the Federal Reserve, has endorsed a prediction of 2.5 to 3 per cent economic growth in 2002.

As you know, the downturn in the U.S. has been worse than it has been here.

Here in Canada, David Dodge, governor of the Bank of Canada, has predicted growth of 1-2 per cent in the first half of 2002 and 3-4 per cent in the second half.

Even Dodge’s predictions may be too low. Growth in the last quarter of 2001 was 0.5 per cent, or an annual rate of 2.0 per cent.

And bear in mind that the budget you are making is not for 2002, but for fiscal 2002, which includes the first quarter of 2003.

And in 2003, as you know, even Jim Flaherty is predicting real GDP growth of 4.4 per cent.

Looking at these numbers, a strong case can be made for a forecast of over three per cent growth for fiscal 2002-03.

In 1996, then Finance Minister Ernie Eves referred to numbers lower than that as “steady, solid growth.”

Flaherty’s prediction of 1.3 per cent is a deliberate lowballing designed to provide a rationale for his real agenda: cuts and privatization to transfer public dollars into private hands.

Flaherty has bragged about balancing the budget in 2001-02.

We should all be asking the question: “If we could have a balanced budget in 2001-2002, with one per cent economic growth, how can we be short several billion dollars in 2002-2003 when economic growth is going to be much higher?

There is only one answer to this: “There’s a hole in the bucket, dear Liza.”

Somebody is still buying drinks at the bar when they should be thinking about groceries.

For example, Jim Flaherty’s pet project, the tax credit for parents with children in private schools, will cost at least $300 million a year and possibly as much as $700 million once it’s fully implemented.

By supporting the public services I mentioned earlier, Ontarians get a stronger public service. By supporting private schools, we get a weaker public school system. Who would vote for that if they had a choice?

Then there’s the $2.2 billion corporate tax cut. Why are we draining the public purse when Canada is the cheapest place to do business of all the G-7 nations, according to KPMG Consulting?

It’s pure right-wing ideology. It is not based on common sense.

Now, you may be surprised to hear me say this, but I agree with Jim Flaherty on something.

We both agree that there is a crisis in Ontario.

But I’m telling you now, it is not a financial crisis. It is a crisis in public services.

To keep it short and sweet, I’m just talking today about the Ontario Public Service specifically.

At last count, the OPSEU bargaining unit in the Ontario Public Service had been reduced by over 23,400 employees. That is a reduction of one-third.

Workloads are up. Stress is up. Frustration is up.

The story of today’s public service is the story of a system that has broken down.

If we had 100 provincial auditors, or if an inquiry like the Walkerton Inquiry were held in every Ministry, it would be revealed that the same policies that undercut the Ministry of Environment are at work in every Ontario government ministry.

The process we call “Walkertonization” is a process of mismanagement. It involves:

· selling off services;

· wiping out rules;

· axing jobs;

· reducing job security, job quality, and wages for public employees, while increasing workloads, frustration, and stress;

· creating confusion, not leadership; and

· destroying employee morale.

Walkertonization creates a mismanaged, fragmented patchwork of a public service. In its current state, the Ontario Public Service can no longer adequately protect public health and safety, let alone the public interest.

It’s time we did something about it.

After six-and-a-half years of cuts, layoffs, and privatization, it is now clear that we, as Ontarians, have no choice: We must rebuild the Ontario Public Service.

That is what you should be thinking about in your budget deliberations.

The foundation of the public service is people.

If we want public safety, value for money, and a professional, accountable, open public service, you have to start by supporting the people on the front lines.

After the September 11 attacks, air security experts asked, “Can we really expect safe airports with security guards paid six dollars and turnover rates of up to 200 per cent per year?”

Not surprisingly, their answer was NO, and the U.S. government made major changes to airport security.

Here at home, Justice Dennis O’Connor reported on January 18 that “[a Ministry of Environment] human resources plan in 2000-2001 reported that the MOE has difficulties attracting and retaining skilled personnel in a number of areas.”

There is a direct relationship between the quality of the public services Ontarians receive and the wages and working conditions of public employees.

Lab technologists at our Resources Road lab in Etobicoke worked day and night during the Walkerton disaster. They were public service heroes. Yet their pay is between 17 and 20 per cent less than pay for the same job at a community hospital.

And that’s just one example. Our nurses, pharmacists, tradespeople, and workers in close to 100 occupations all face the same problem.

How can the government expect to hang on to skilled, experienced people? How can the government expect to recruit enthusiastic new ones?

The answer is, it can’t.

Take a look at the 25 junior Environmental Officers who have been hired to inspect water plants.

All of them are temporary contract staff. Is the government saying that water quality is a temporary problem? It certainly looks that way.

We now have 26 per cent of our members on contract, with no benefits, no pension plan, and no job security rights.

Not surprisingly, many of them leave when they find out that a contract job is not a foot in the door but a slap in the face.

It shouldn’t be that way. Public service is not just a job, it’s a calling.

When people have stable careers in the public service, they develop expertise and experience. They learn to live by a set of guiding principles on how to operate in the public interest.

Senior workers pass their knowledge on to junior workers.

More than that, they pass on the fact that they care about protecting the public interest. They pass on the fact that they are commited to protecting public safety, taking care of the public’s money, and ensuring democratic accountability.

That is the way the public service should work. But today, OPSEU members in the Ontario Public Service are overworked, stressed, and demoralized.

Their wages are low. They have little job security.

Staff turnover has never been higher. Staff recruitment has never been harder.

Those who remain on the job are forced to watch the looting of the public service by every junior Enron with a PC party card.

With these kinds of decisions going on, we shouldn’t be surprised that OPSEU members are wondering: How it is that we can afford a 36.6 per cent pay raise for MPPs but we can’t afford to support the people on the front lines of public service delivery?

Go back to school.

Upgrade your education.

Sit through about a thousand aptitude and psychological tests (good luck passing the latter Avro!)

Sit through about a thousand interviews.

Get in shape so you can pass the physical tests.

Pass a background check where everyone from your landlady to your high school gym teacher is going to be interviewed about you.

Drop $8000 and go live in Aylmer for 3 months with 400 other aspiring coppers.

Successfully complete a year's probation.

Getting Spat at by drunks and bled on by junkies,

Breaking up fights involving violent drunks in bar rooms as the entire bar shouts and throws things at you,

Pulling over a car with 4 violent criminals on board on some dark, lonely stretch of the 401 when your nearest back up is 20 minutes away,

Having seconds to make life and death decisions at 3 am that will be picked apart over the course of months by lawyers and judges in the sterile, comfortable surroundings of a court room,

Spending lot's of your days off in court,

Reading newspaper stories critical of something you did, written by people who weren't even there when it happened, have no understanding of the context of the situation, and don't even like you because they resent what you stand for,

Getting to smile politely as you listen to some clown tell you a donut/cop joke you've heard 5 million times before everytime you go into Tim Horton's for a bottle of water, a sandwich or a coffee,

Getting to spend 4 hours doing paperwork on the end of a 12 hour night shift, when you can barely keep your eyes open, over a stupid fucking domestic dispute between two hopeless drunks. And knowing that within in week, you'll be dealing with the same pair all over again,

Jumping over guard rails to avoid out of control cars that are coming at you at an accident scene or vehicle stop.

Getting to stand on someone's doorstep and tell them that their teenage son was killed in a car accident,

Getting to explain to a crime victim why the person who robbed/assaulted/raped/burgled them etc. is being set free on a technicality by some out of touch, lunatic judge.[/i]

Lot's of people have tough jobs, true. Cops have one that's tougher than most. They deserve to be compensated well for that. The government seems to agree.

If you feel other people deserve it too, then have your union make the case to the government and use the collective bargaining process to get it for yourselves, just like the emergency services workers did.

But don't just whine because somebody's getting something you're not.

You really are a whinging suck sometimes Avro.

Dayseed Wrote:
And if you're like Motorcycleboy, that "education" arrives in the mail and is worth just a touch more than the stamps required to get it.

One only has to sit through a thousand psychological tests if the first 999 turn up "flags." In this context, "flag" is synonymous with "fatal fucking flaw."

Sit through about a thousand interviews.

See above. Here's a tip, don't be like Motorcycleboy and describe a Muslim neighbour as the "tinted guy." Cuts down the interviews to one.

Just get in shape. Period.

Drop $8000 and go live in Aylmer for 3 months with 400 other aspiring coppers.

Boo-hoo. A university degree is four YEARS and $40,000 with four THOUSAND other aspiring lawyers, doctors, engineers and teachers.

Also, it would upset the poor boy to know that aspiring RCMP candidates train for 6 months...for free. A quick trip to their website confirms that.

Would it be a minimum level of English competency, such as knowing how to spell "privilege"? See Motorcycleboy, if you ever become a real police officer, your woeful lack of knowledge or proof-reading will prevent you from doing anything other than screwing up traffic tickets.

Apparently the doctors take Christmas off. Don't get sick!

Getting Spat at by drunks and bled on by junkies

Or just live in Toronto.

Breaking up fights involving violent drunks in bar rooms as the entire bar shouts and throws things at you,

I'm glad you added breaking up fights involving violent drunks. Is there a situation where two drunk professors have been arguing over the meaning of Percy Shelley's Ozymandias in which it's been necessary that you intervene? Fuck.

Nobody has ever denied that the police don't face difficult decisions. I just deny that YOU have ever had to face a difficult police situation.

Having seconds to make life and death decisions at 3 am that will be picked apart over the course of months by lawyers and judges in the sterile, comfortable surroundings of a court room,

Dayseed:
Let's not forget doctors, firefighters or anyone else that has a job in which an actionable decision can and will be made.

Of course, there aren't ANY other jobs in which overtime is required. No lawyer has EVER devoted a weekend to preparing arguments for Monday morning.

Say, doesn't Motorcycleboy post things critical of things when he wasn't there when it happened, has no understanding of the situation and resents people because of that for which the stand? Let's look at the multitude of hypocrisy resident in his posts about the federal Liberals.

Jumping over guard rails to avoid out of control cars that are coming at you at an accident scene or vehicle stop.

Again, life threatening situations are not unique to the police, nor necessarily more abundant.

Again, no doctor has ever had to explain something like that.

This is the moronic fucking comment which made this critique necessary. What kind of incompetent fuck are you that technicalities abound in your work? What, if you would be so kind as to furnish a definition, is a technicality? Didn't get a search warrant? Couldn't articulate your grounds on the stand? What technicality have you ever seen wherein a "out of touch, lunatic" judge has "freed" somebody? What "technicality" frees somebody on sexual assault? Jesus Dipped In Shit Christ!

And who exactly are you to question the jurisprudence exercised by a Judge anyway? They have TWO degrees to your NONE and a far deeper understanding of the law than what passes for your piss-poor efforts. Considering you fucking IGNORE case law when reaching your legal opinions, I'd have to say that in your case, a technicality equals a glaring mistake.

Bickering judges in the spotlight
Case reveals fits of pique, squabbles

Judge called `bully' by a colleague
Feb. 11, 2006. 10:35 AM
TRACEY TYLER
LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER


A hearing into a high-profile judge's fitness to remain on the bench promises to reveal the Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton as it has never been seen before: Looking a lot like any other workplace.

Accusations of mismanagement, battles over parking spaces, sarcasm and name-calling are featured in a series of letters and email exchanges between judges. The material was made public yesterday when a panel of the Ontario Judicial Council convened in the case of Justice Marvin Morten.

The 61-year-old judge is alleged to have acted in a manner incompatible with judicial office.

In the documents, which cover a four-year period starting in 2000, Morten complains of being harassed by his senior administrative judge, questions the work ethic of fellow jurists, and complains of being treated like "a whipping boy" or "mule" by judges wanting him to fill in on their days off.

For their part, one judge describes Morten as "a bully," another calls him "abusive" and yet another complains that, while waiting for an elevator, Morten called him a "jerk."

The documents also deal with more general issues of court operations in Peel. Brampton has a troubled history of once being the home of the longest trial delays in Canada and a 1990 Supreme Court ruling that a man's constitutional rights were violated by having to wait nearly three years for his case to come to trial in Peel led to tens of thousands of criminal charges being thrown out of court.

While judges, lawyers and court staff have worked diligently to improve the court's efficiency and image, Morten appears deeply concerned that problems still abound, including what he describes as "absolute chaos" in the scheduling of judges and the arrival of prisoners. At one point, he alleges a fellow judge closed court early, leaving accused people in custody, so he could take his children to an 'NSync concert.

The letters and emails fill a large volume of material filed with the panel in support of a bid to close portions of the hearing to the public. Testimony from the judges will augment what is in the documents.

In an affidavit, Morten says the documents "tell only part of the story" and more will come out at the hearing.

Doug Hunt, a lawyer presenting the case to the council, argued that publication of the hearing's proceedings would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice in Brampton and across the province.

But yesterday, a judicial council panel headed by Justice Eileen Gillese of the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled the alleged harm was "speculative" and said the material does not fit within the circumstances that would justify closing the hearing, which Morten himself wants open.

The complaint against him was filed Oct. 30, 2003 by Justice Ian Cowan, the court's administrative judge in Brampton.

In a letter to the council, Cowan alleges that when he got out of his car at work that morning, Morten, who arrived at the same time, "began laughing at me in an uproarious manner."

Cowan's letter said that a few minutes later he again ran into Morten, who once more "roared with laughter at me and in a loud voice said, `You are a pathetic piece of work.'"

Cowan claimed Morten for several years had refused to follow his directions and runs his court as he chooses, in the process becoming "ungovernable."

Three years earlier, Morten had sent a letter of complaint to Justice Anton Zuraw, the court's regional senior judge, contending Cowan had "frustrated" his ability to function.

In one instance, Morten alleged Cowan and a trial co-ordinator switched staff from assigned courtrooms at the last minute, which meant his court started nearly an hour late and a vulnerable prisoner who had undergone heart surgery while in custody was kept waiting longer than necessary.

Justice Tim Culver, the new regional senior judge, responded in November 2001, suggesting he and Morten start with a "clean slate." As a general principle, he added, he stood behind Cowan.

Culver noted, however, that Cowan had some complaints of his own, alleging that: Morten had refused to assist other judges when his court finished early; accused trial co-ordinators of ineptitude; and refused to follow the car parking "protocol" for Superior and Ontario Court judges, causing a "loss of goodwill" between the courts.

The following June, Morten sent a lengthy memo to Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry and Chief Justice Brian Lennox of the Ontario Court, complaining about the lack of a "focused and visionary" response to challenges facing Peel's criminal justice system.

Adding to the problems were inexperienced judges, police and Crown attorneys, he said.

Morten sent a copy to his fellow judges, who weren't impressed and refused to meet to discuss his concerns.

"I view this memo as nothing less than an over-our-heads and behind-our-backs attack by Justice Morten on us," said Justice Bruce Duncan.

Things didn't seem to improve. In May 2004, Duncan emailed Cowan an about "an incident" two weeks earlier, when Duncan was on his way to court.

Morten was standing in front of the elevator and, after a brief exchange, uttered the word "jerk," Duncan's email stated.

Morten stepped in the elevator, looked straight at him and said "whining wimp" or "whimpering whiner," Duncan said.

The hearing is to begin May 8.

Toronto Star

Not all jobs are allowed to unionize or collectively bargain genius. Not all employers are in a position to grant union wishes, deserved or not.

A misguided attempt to assign literal meaning to an obvious use of hyperbole in my original post. Not worthy of reply.

Please produce the quote where I used that term Dayseed.

Obvious attempt at slander. Not worthy of reply.

So what? Doctors, lawyers and engineers earn copious amounts of money to compensate for their educational sacrifices. Teachers are able to work to an older age than cops. This thread is about better pensions for cops and fire fighters.

Maybe it's a bit too involved for you. Back to the "babes" forum Dayseed.

Wow! That's a real find Sherlock!

Hey! While you're googling, maybe you could find out what sort of training NYPD recruits go through! How about the London Met? The CHP?

That would all be quite fascinating if they were members of the Ontario Municipal Employee Retirement Scheme. But unfortunately, like RCMP members, they're not. So it's really quite irrelevant to a thread about pension changes for municipal police officers in Ontario, is it not?

Oooh. What a burn. I made a spelling error. Man, did you ever get me there! I'm so embarrassed!

You must have been spending the last few months trying to find any error on my part to make up for the time I pointed out you were in error when you thought "Breach of the Peace" was a "Bail Condition."

If it's tit-for-tat, then I'll wear the spelling mistake Dayseed.

See above comment regarding pay/education/pension debate.

Oh yes. Toronto's such a dangerous city for you and you're friends to live in. I'm sure you, and many other Torontonians, have gone through the fun and games of HIV and Hep C tests over blood splatter incidents, bodily fluid exposure, etc.

Many cops have. Don't flatter yourself Dayseed. You wouldn't be up to that and you know it.

I don't follow. Are you suggesting I'm a university student? I'm not.

Then don't believe me. I don't care.

Well, considering firefighters are part of my argument, then thank you for the support.

As for Doctors, true, they have to make difficult, complex decisions regularly. But they don't have to make them in the middle of high pressure situations where their own lives and well being are in jeopardy very often, and, as said before, they already are very well compensated for it. Rightfully so too.

Already well compensated, as I've said repeatedly.

Hypocrisy? Because I've been critical of the Liberals? Yeah, I guess you're right. It's not up to me as a voter to oppose my government. Who the fuck am I to do that.

After all, it's not like we live in a country that subscribes to the Westminster Parliamentary system, which is adversarial by nature.

If I have to pull a Derby or Ruserious and loudly approve of everything my government or political party does to avoid being labelled a "hypocrite" in your books, then I guess I'll just have to suck it up Dayseed.

No. But they are more frequent then they are for school janitors or municipal clerical staff. That's what the bill seeks to recognize.

Guess what my rebuttal to that is? (hint-I've already used it a few times this post)

This is the moronic fucking comment which made this critique necessary. What kind of incompetent fuck are you that technicalities abound in your work? What, if you would be so kind as to furnish a definition, is a technicality? Didn't get a search warrant? Couldn't articulate your grounds on the stand? What technicality have you ever seen wherein a "out of touch, lunatic" judge has "freed" somebody? What "technicality" frees somebody on sexual assault? Jesus Dipped In Shit Christ!

No you're right. Decisions like Carter are totally sensible. After all, how on earth could a judge be expected to find a person guilty just because a mere machine indicates his BAC is at 160 mg/100 ml blood? Especially when the accused is standing there swearing on a bible in court that he "only had two drinks." It's not like an accused would ever LIE!

Or that brilliant Feeny decision! The one where the learned Mr Justice Sopinka overturned 400 years of established common law to ensure that police can no longer arrest someone in their home without a warrant, even if they know the person is there.

The woman in Scarborough who was the victim of an axe attack by her husband while Toronto police were busy typing up a Feeny to go arrest him can thank the Canadian Supreme Court for that little gem!

Ditto for the perpetually outraged black activist types who blew a gasket last year when Toronto Police from 31 Divsion arrested a group of black students at their school for the sexual assault of a white girl rather than the kid's residences.

Somehow, countries like the UK and Australia have managed to administer jurisprudence without bringing in shit like "Carter" and "Feeny". And I haven't heard of those countries descending into unbridled tyrrany or oppression.

Glad to hear judges are incapable of making mistakes in your books. I do hope you'll be so kind as to explain that to Derby next time he starts ranting about that stupid incident where his friend was "wrongfully" convicted for a fracas outside a bar. He claims his friend was innocent.

I guess you're right though. Judges are above criticism. They are all learned, pious individuals possessed of tremendous insight and knowledge.

Municipal public sector workers certainly are genius. That's what this thread is about genius. It's not $9 an hour wharehouse workers opposing Bill 206 genius. Maybe you missed it genius.

Your point about Carter is completely irrelevant. The substance of a Carter defence doesn't hinge on the "time the last drink was consumed and it's effect on breathalyzer readings". The introduction of evidence to the contrary is acheived by introducing evidence to the contrary.

I could explain to you how a Carter defence is achieved, but as your busily typing away hoping to get noticed by Alan Gold or Bruce Daly, I'll let you explain;

How is a Carter defence acheived? and;

What charge(s) can it be used to defend against?

Your point about Feeny is half right. The RCMP didn't articulate their grounds very well.

The resulting decision was also not unanimous. So obviously, there are more than a few arguments against it.

If you'd like to debate them, then as I've told you already, start a suitable thread on the matter that has a cogent point, and I will be happy to oblige. I'm not going to sit here and debate you intelligently as your busy hijacking this thread and frothing at the mouth though.

As for your demand I cite examples of British or Australian case law to "prove" my point that decisions like "Feeny" or "Carter" don't exist in those legal systems, well...

I'VE MADE A STATEMENT THAT SOMETHING DOESN'T EXIST. YOU DISPUTE THAT. IT'S NOT UP TO ME TO PROVE A NEGATIVE BONEHEAD. IT'S UP TO YOU TO REFUTE ME.

BTW, the article I posted from the Star wasn't a "link", it was quoted, set out clearly and quite easy to read. You know you read it and so do I. Pretending to ignore it just proves it challenges your position and you have no response. The headline alone makes your slavish devotion to those who sit on the Bench an embarrassment to you.

P.S.-(That was a good find eh? What are the odds that article would have appeared in the Saturday Star the same weekend you decided to post on this thread?

Boy, did you ever pick the wrong fucking day to start this shit!)

Nothing else in your post will be commented on by me because as I've said it's nothing more than insulting drivel.