Search results

A son is not his father.

I do not - just reading the public statements.

The Super Hornet is about 99% dead as long as Boeing doesn't kill their compliant against Bombardier, IMO.

So, uhh, I guess I wasn't so wrong after all....

I just mean that it's unlikely that this government will buy a Boeing product.  That said I don't expect this government to be around post 2024, and I would imagine that the selection will happen somewhere around that time - could be a couple of years later.

You're both right - I said that completely wrong.  I wasn't trying to be an expert, I simply remember the article a few years ago about the modernization being completed on some aircraft and that they were expected to operate into the 2030s.  Why the last government went that route whey...

One this is almost certain at this point (for the foreseeable future, anyway) - we won't be buying the P-8 made by Boeing.

I'll have to leave aside all of the rest, because I don't pretend to know things that I, well, don't know.  The CP-140 was not designed to fly until 2030.  The CP-140M was designed for that.  I was only including the updated and modernized aircraft in there. 

The courts don't care about that.

Lol, the UK doesn't have the capability now, and we've been filling the gap.  The CP-140M was designed to serve until 2030.  The government has committed to a new platform. 

How many settlements have you seen negotiated in public?

You don't get to pick if it applies or not.  It applies to Quebec - end of story.

The denial was under all 3 governments.  The Harper government was specifically to blame for the failure to recognize his status as a youth offender in Bowden Institution v Khadr.

Actually, you're right, which is why I posted the relevant portion of the rulings.  That the US had him was not the problem.  Our complicity in certain activities, and our failure to follow our own laws was.

Quebec signed the constitution in 1867.  Their 'signature' in 1982 would only have been ceremonial, and isn't necessary for legal reasons. 

The documents outlining aboriginal rights in Canada are actually constitutional documents.  I know that because it says so in the Constitution.

I'll go back, again, to Canada (Justice) v Khadr: The principles of international law and comity of nations, which normally require that Canadian officials operating abroad comply with local law and which might otherwise preclude application of the Charter  to Canadian officials acting abroad...

There is if we decide there is and defend said rights - we did that.  Canada's Charter applies to all of us, and we're very lucky to have such a document.

And in this case, our system of rights applied.  That's why I don't understand the relevance.

You're right, you're not required to do anything.  If you expect your assertion to be taken seriously, it would probably be a good idea to back it up. This particular situation has arisen because of rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada.  Pining for the US system of elected judges wouldn't...