Rupert S. Lander
-
Posts
34 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Rupert S. Lander
-
-
This is what I got when I was done (took like ten seconds, thank goodness I have an online account), like I say this was before I read I was supposed to wait. It didn't say anything about me supposed to be waiting.
-
I applied for the CERB today as I am eligible for it. Didn't seem run into problems online but later found out via the news I was supposed to wait until Thursday because my birthday is in November.
The system basically said all was good and I shouldn't try calling. Do I need to worry about this?
-
Curious what the deal is with all this hand-wringing over the Ontario Government's contract with Brewers Retail that, among other things, forbids beer sales in corner stores. The PC's have a huge majority in the Legislature. Any piece of legislation can be enacted to operate notwithstanding any existing contract... or just void the contract altogether. Why shouldn't they, and why wouldn't they... they quickly came to an understanding with the folks running H1 as I recall.
-
This topic was intended to specifically discuss the implications of the federal powers of disallowance and reservation on this question. If the feds ever signal they may consider it, there will be a lot of articles written in opposition. Here is one in support:
-
Ever since Doug Ford proposed slashing the size of Toronto City Council, federal Liberals have been talking about doing "whatever they can" to "protect Torontonians" from the proposed legislation.
As far as I can tell, the Trudeau government has three options in terms of legal and constitutional recourse:
1) Reservation - basically, order Ontario's Lieutenant Governor to veto the bill;
2) Disallowance - basically, get the federal cabinet to formally nix the legislation once it becomes law (the feds would have one year following Royal Assent to invoke this);
3) Well, that's it - the proposed law appears to be perfectly constitutional otherwise.
These powers haven't been used in a very long time, probably because their use tended to blow up in the faces of the federal party using them and/or their provincial counterparts. The last time they were seriously invoked was by the Liberals during the Albertan SoCreds' first couple of terms, and the resulting political firestorm played a big role in laying the foundations for that party's dynasty (and the Albertan Liberals' irrelevance). Pierre Trudeau briefly considered disallowing Bill 101 and other PQ legislation, but (wisely) decided it would do more political harm to provoke the separatists in that way.
This is a different situation. Ford is many things, but he's not a separatist. Obviously, the only circumstance under which the Liberals would even consider invoking disallowance or reservation is if a clear majority of the Toronto CC passed a motion demanding the feds do exactly that. That would present quite a decision for Trudeau:
- If he disallows, Ford Nation would go apoplectic, but that in itself might not cost the Liberals a lot of votes;
- OTOH if he ignores such a motion, the NDP would immediately pounce. Singh would charge that Trudeau has turned his back on Toronto, and would warn voters in other major cities that Trudeau can't be trusted to protect their interests if he won't go to bat for Toronto. That could potentially cost the Liberals a lot of votes in places where it would hurt them most.
Thoughts?
-
1
-
-
In a not-too-unrelated matter, the incresingly senile former CEO Kingsley's recent idiotic musings are completely irrelevant. At worst, the Referendum Act would merely forbid the Governor in Council (i.e. the prime minister and cabinet) from calling a referendum on electoral reform without Parliamentary approval. Then again, the Canada Elections Act would forbid the GiC from unilaterally changing the electoral system. At the end of the day, an Act of Parliament is required to change the electoral system. If that Act made its implementation subject to the approval of the electorate in a referendum, it would automatically supersede the Referendum Act.
The Referendum Act was intended, in large part, to prevent PM's from easily calling referenda on controversial issues. For example, had PM Harper in his minority days had wanted to call a referendum on the definition of marriage. That would not have passed Parliament, and if Harper had tried calling one through the GiC, it would likely have been ruled off-side by the courts.
I would add that if Parliament enacts any law that is subject to referendum approval for implementation, it has the right to choose any winning threshold it wants to, including 50% + 1.
-
In a truly competitive industry, companies are accountable to both their shareholders and their customers. Once an industry becomes uncompetitive, shareholders win out every time. At least if the cellular infrastructure was publicly owned there would be some accountability to the voters, both for the rates charged to subscribers via providers and the quality of service rendered. It's far from a perfect system, but it's far better than what we have now.The things that break the mold are things that its very hard for the consumer NOT to buy. Cell phones are becoming one of those. Healthcare is another. Auto insurance is another. Companies know they can jack up the rates, and reduce the quality of service and still have about the same number of subscribers.
And that guaranteed customer base allows for very poorly run companies like Rogers and Bell to stay profitable by just charging more.
Hell... they could probably charge 300 dollars a month for basic phone access and there would still be 35 million Canadian subscribers.
I agree on liquor stores but disagree on auto insurance. I don't think private insurers should be kept out of the market but I think there should be a public option.
Here's quotes from private insurers in Ontario for the same coverage you get from ICBC for about 1400 bucks.
As for auto insurance - full disclosure, as a forty-ish old driver with a good record I pay about the same for Albertan insurance and plates as I'd pay SGI for the same coverage. It's nothing close to those rates. I suppose the question of whether auto insurance should be public or private largely comes down to whether or not driving is a necessity.
PS I looked it up on the banking app - we paid $2087 to insure two vehicles and $167 to put plates on them. But I didn't create this thread to argue for public or private auto insurance.
-
I wouldn't support the nationalization of the oil and gas industry, and for that matter I don't support state ownership of the automobile insurance industry or liquor stores. I'm pretty much in favour of free enterprise and private ownership for everything other than essential services and essential infrastructure. That's a mixed economy, not socialism.
As I've posted more than once in this thread, I have come to the conclusion that the cellular network should be regarded as essential infrastructure and placed under government ownership - preferably at the provincial level although I realize that nationalization could only be enacted by Ottawa.
-
You miss the point. There are few customers in these areas so a profit driven provider is not going to invest as much. Whatever the government is doing is in Sask it is likely not making money doing it. That also does not change my point about how one does not make decisions on what to do with a national network based on what happens in light populated rural areas.
That would be fair comment as long as we were willing to consider the cellular network nothing more than a profit-driven enterprise, indefinitely. If I agreed with that, I would agree with you because, as a general rule, I am as much for free enterprise as anyone.
The whole point I am trying to make is that the cellular network has passed a threshold where it can now be reasonably and feasibly deemed essential infrastructure, on par with other utilities and roads. This is not just a matter of convenience - being able to speedily summon emergency services on a highway can literally be a matter of life or death. Therefore, I never considered and will not consider whether SaskTel (i.e. the Government of Saskatchewan) is directly turning a profit on every single tower they build because, to be frank, that is not why governments invest in infrastructure and that is not why governments are supposed invest in infrastructure.
-
One does not draw conclusions about how to best run a cellular network based on quality of service in rural areas which also happen to have the ideal geography for cell towers. Most of the people in the country live in cities and in areas where the geography creates challenges for cell providers.
The terrain of EC Alberta is just as ideal for cell service as that of WC Saskatchewan, yet there are dead zones everywhere besides the Trans Canada - not just in valleys. This is about as apples-to-apples of a comparison as you are going to get.
But they get to define what is respectable. Look at health care wait times. After spending tens of billions since Paul Martin 'fixed health care in our time' we find out that most of that money went to improving the salaries, benefits and mini empires of those who work in health care, and the wait times are hardly improved at all.
They can define what is respectable, but the public can call BS. Like any other government service, if the government is derelict in its duty to provide good cell service their MLAs are going to hear about it. If you don't believe me, I suggest that you ask any rural Sask Party MLA. It would seem that, as relatively good a job as SaskTel has done providing service compared to its neighbours, there are a fair number of constituents who think they could do better still. And that's not a bad thing.
-
This is a grossly naive view that has no basis in historical fact or knowledge of how government works.
The actual basis for my view is a first-hand, on-the-ground comparison of the current quality of cellular service in rural Alberta compared to the current quality of cellular service in rural Saskatchewan.
To be blunt, service in rural East Central Alberta sucks whereas service in rural West Central Saskatchewan, the terrain being similar and the population density either the same or lower, does not suck nearly as bad, if at all. And, no, I do not partake in any illicit drugs.
Oh, did I mention how much cheaper the rates in Saskatchewan are?
-
As I stated earlier, I think the cell towers being owned by the provinces is far and away preferable to them being owned by Ottawa. Politically I realize that's complicated by the Constitutional reality of the feds having sole jurisdiction to enact nationalization in this sector.
My preference, idealistic as it is, would be for each provincial Crown Corporation to be empowered to levy network access fees for all of a particular provider's subscribers that access their province's particular network in a particular. These fees would then be passed on to the subscribers in a plain and transparent manner. In a case where a subscriber was in multiple provinces for a billing period, Ottawa could mandate that the provincial fees be assessed proportionally according to the subscriber's usage that month. I would also suggest that the network access fee have some proportionality to the fees charged by the provider, so that low-intensity users are not burdened with fees that are excessive with respect to their usage.
On second thought, a "network access fee" might not be the right terminology or approach. Instead, just let each Provincial CC bill each provider X number of dollars each month based on their subscribers' actual aggregate use of their network.
Each provider would then be able to come up with plans for subscribers that take all of the variables into consideration.
I believe democratic forces, in the long run, would be sufficient in most if not all provinces to deter governments from excessively gouging subscribers or being grossly negligent in providing service. I know this because at least across the AB-SK border where I live, the now-re-elected MLA's heard alot of "we like the work you guys have done in providing cell service to rural areas but there's still more work to be done." Isn't it funny how that would keep coming up in a provincial election campaign when the province already effectively owns the cellular infrastructure?
Meanwhile, enough providers would enter the market (I imagine Shaw would make a big splash while MTS and Sasktel would expand beyond their home provinces, to start) so that free market forced would properly keep providers' profit margins in check.
-
It needn't be welfare. It could be paid for by a levy placed on Canada's telecom providers, much like how phones for US welfare recipients are subsidized by a fee paid by the telecom providers. Or it could be a joint venture using money and expertise from private telecom corporations. Considering how during their "Fair for Canada" campaign the Big 3 wrapped themselves in the flag and talked about how they were building Canada, I would think they'd be proud to be partners in such an initiative.
-k
As I stated earlier, I think the cell towers being owned by the provinces is far and away preferable to them being owned by Ottawa. Politically I realize that's complicated by the Constitutional reality of the feds having sole jurisdiction to enact nationalization in this sector.
My preference, idealistic as it is, would be for each provincial Crown Corporation to be empowered to levy network access fees for all of a particular provider's subscribers that access their province's particular network in a particular. These fees would then be passed on to the subscribers in a plain and transparent manner. In a case where a subscriber was in multiple provinces for a billing period, Ottawa could mandate that the provincial fees be assessed proportionally according to the subscriber's usage that month. I would also suggest that the network access fee have some proportionality to the fees charged by the provider, so that low-intensity users are not burdened with fees that are excessive with respect to their usage.
-
No monopoly protected from competition has any incentive to invest to improve the technology since their captive customers have no choice but to accept whatever the offer. This tendency is magnified for governments where protecting union jobs and/or regionally distribute pork is higher priority than providing better service.
Governments outsource the construction of roads and highways to private firms who rely on improvements in technology to improve their bids and ensure they get the work. That said, getting funding for a new rail line or bridge in this country is almost impossible which tends to support my argument that governments would be unable to invest in improvements to the telecommunication infrastructure.
You have a naive view of how the voting process works. 2 out of the 3 parties in this country are lap dogs for public sector unions which would ensure that protection of these union jobs will be job one. Better service to the public would be a minor concern. Second, many issues affect a person's vote and it unlikely dissatisfaction with the cell network would trump other issues which people care about.
The best way to ensure accountability is to ensure people can take their money and go elsewhere. That requirement needs competition between private firms investing private capital.
If governments are willing to outsource construction and maintenance of roads then why would they not outsource construction and maintenance of cell towers? To be clear, I'm only arguing for the nationalization of ownership of the towers, not the firms that build and maintain them. I do recognize the probability that unions would start angling to put this work in the public sector. But I also see that the private sector is thriving in many parts of the country when it comes to things like road maintenance, so I see no reason why it wouldn't continue to have a role to play in maintaining the cellular network. Combine that with having the private sector continue to provide service directly to consumers, and we could go a long way to ensuring a considerable level of accountability from any Crown Corporation managing a cell network.
I also recognize that the quality of cell service is only one of many issues that would come into play during an election campaign, but I think it would play a bigger role than you might consider possible, especially with younger voters.
You seem to think that the best way for me to hold cell providers accountable is to just take my business elsewhere - I'd like to think it ought to be that simple but I would respectfully submit that I've done enough laps to conclude that's no longer the answer.
-
Without competition you kill any incentive to upgrade technology. You would also ensure that any new tech that rendered the government monopoly obsolete would be blocked because governments would want to protect their cash cow.
You seem to be suggesting that once the government owns the network infrastructure they'd have no incentive to maintain and upgrade it. I disagree. That sort of logic would also imply that the government has no incentive to maintain and improve roads and transit systems. Whereas clearly they have to maintain some respectable level of service, otherwise they risk getting voted out of office. The same principle would apply to a nationalized cell network. If the government were seen to be putting a lacklustre effort into maintaining and improving wireless service once it was clearly their responsibility to do so, voters would hold them to account. It's not a perfect system by any means, but I would argue that it is a better arrangement than what we have now.
I would also argue that governments in Canada have increasingly been inclined to either acquiesce to the consequences of technological development or work to mitigate the "damage" - for example, they didn't just outright ban satellite radio as a knee-jerk response to protect Canadian content on terrestrial radio. So whenever the next great technological advancement that renders cell towers obsolete comes along, I'm reasonably confident whatever government is in power will quickly see the futility of trying to stop it at the border.
-
I'm not sure about the idea of nationalizing the existing network, but perhaps there is a role for government in expanding coverage in remote areas where low populations make cell service commercially unprofitable. They could set up towers in remote areas and allow the commercial carriers to use them.
-k
The same rationale could be used to argue that the most heavily used roads and highways in Canada should all be sold to the private sector, leaving the government to maintain roads only in sparsely populated areas.
The problem is once you start this sort of project the industry is going to stop investing private sector dollars in infrastructure. They'll step back and expect the government to shoulder the burden for them. "Partial nationalization" will not work - either go all the way, or forget the whole idea.
-
If the government was in charge we'd still be using brick phones, and the coverage areas would be half what they are now with double the cost. Government does not engage in anything remotely new or take any chances. There'd be no move towards HD TV or even digital TV if government was in charge there, either. Government likes things static (no pun intended) and change comes very, very, very, very slowly, if at all.
By that logic, service in Saskatchewan should be crap compared to the rest of the country. Living near the AB-SK border, I can tell you that simply isn't the case.
-
Now that the vast majority of Canadians own cell phones, is it time to consider nationalizing the country's cellular network? I am referring strictly to things like the cell towers, etc. as opposed to the cellular providers themselves. I base this proposal on the rationale that the public sector ought to be able to provide better and more consistent service across the country (particularly in rural areas) compared to the private sector's current performance, and that the cellular network could now reasonably be deemed essential infrastructure that should be owned by the public sector as opposed to the private sector.
-
Parliament can't override provincial jurisdiction. On the other hand, If a province passes a law that is in federal jurisdiction it will be considered beyond the province's power and no longer a law. The notwithstanding clause would not apply in that case.
Thanks for the insight. I'm just curious if the "disallowance" power that was frequently invoked by John A. Macdonald is still part of the constitution. It's basically an academic question at this point since I don't think even a hypothetical AB Wildrose gov't would attempt to enact something along the lines of NC's PFP&SA, but I was just curious.
-
Yes, the Notwithstanding clause can overrule the courts for a limited time.
However, using this clause to squash someone's rights may be untenable due to public pressure, unless of course it's an unpopular court decision....
Of course, this has very rarely been used by legislatures for that reason among others.
It can't be applied retroactively.
I guess I should have said it can insulate legislation from court challenges, not overrule the court....
Thanks for the correction.
If the scenario was that a court decision was brought down that highly unpopular in a particular province, couldn't their legislature just pass another Bill, identical word for word with the one that was struck down, thus effectively "overruling" the court?
As I read S33 in the charter, you couldn't use it to "resurrect" a previously enacted statute, but that wouldn't stop the legislature from passing a new law (valid for five years) that does exactly the same thing, only with the NWC attached.
Essentially, my original question was that if a province ever did that, would Parliament still have the power to step in and override the legislature.
-
If it's in their scope of powers then Provinces can pass stupid and unconstitutional laws despite what a federal gov't might think.
It's the courts that would overturn the law when challenged.
ETA: If the federal gov't felt strongly about it, they could be the ones to challenge a law like that in court.
Wouldn't Section 33 (the Notwithstanding Clause) pretty much squash any plausible court challenge that could be mustered against the law (albeit for only five years at a time)?
I know the NWC doesn't allow provinces to encroach on federal jurisdiction, hence why provinces weren't allowed to use it to override federal same sex marriage laws for example, but I don't think that argument would largely apply to a NC-like law which mainly deals with regulation of schools, hospitals and other such facilities that are clearly provincial jurisdiction in Canada.
-
Academic question: suppose, hypothetically, a Provincial Legislature passed a law modeled on North Carolina's Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act and invoked Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to shield that law from the inevitable Constitutional challenge that would arise.
Would the Federal Parliament technically have the recourse to "disallow" that law or is that power obsolete?
I'm asking this in an academic sense as opposed to making an argument as to what the Federal Government should or shouldn't do if such a hypothetical situation ever arose.
-
A simple proposition:
Since Bill C-290 has been overwhelmingly passed by the democratically elected House of Commons but stalled by the unelected Senate, and since C-290 only seeks to repeal a section of the Criminal Code of Canada and does not seek to add or amend any paragraph to the CCC, therefore, should C-290 be defeated or die on the order paper when Stephen Harper has the Governor General prorogue Parliament later this year, then:
- would the Prime Minister be justfied of he were to advise the GG to use the Royal Prerogative of Mercy to extend a general amnesty that would grant unconditional immunity from prosecution to any party that may contravene Paragraph 207(4)b of the CCC, either now or in the future?
- and if the GG issued such an amnesty, would that amnesty for all intents and purposes have the same legal effects as Bill C-290?
I believe the answer to both questions is yes.
-
I got a joke for you:
It's about a bunch of sore loser liberals who moaned about the exploits of a putative "King Harper" so they went to bang on the doors of the royal palace housing the representative of the real monarch, asking him to use royal powers to thwart the will of the imagined "king".
Don't get it? Neither do I.
I applied for the CERB today then found out I was too "early" - is this a problem?
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
I got paid this morning. I guess that answers the question