Evening Star

OMG, so many progressives/social democrats I know loathe Rae for the promises he broke. Even during his reign, the unions and the left wing of his own party turned against him. Sid Ryan and Buzz Hargrove, who had been some of the most prominent NDP supporters for years, became his enemies after the Social Contract. The NDP was elected in part on a promise to implement public auto insurance, which they backtracked on. Likewise, they failed to muster enough support within their majority government to pass legislation to secure same-sex benefits. They promised that their anti-poverty programmes would eliminate the need for food banks. They failed to seriously tackle this and ended up allocating funds towards food banks themselves. If anything, McGuinty has probably been better on some of these points.

Ouch. I'm sorry, dude.

Hm, Bill may be (unfortunately imo) right here.

Ha, I was thinking the same thing. Go Randy go.

Right. So then this is what August is defending and what I am arguing against.

Btw, one of the chief arguments in favour of this reform was that minority communities, which are often concentrated in cities, are underrepresented currently.

Well, I'll bite. How are less-populated, and sometimes economically disadvantaged (less in SK's case), regions like SK/MB or the Atlantic provinces getting screwed by federalism (which includes equalization payments and often federal action to protect and promote industry in those areas)? In any case, they're rarely the regions that clamour the most for decentralization. QC, which seems to be the biggest source of decentralist sentiment, is part of Central Canada, is overrepresented in the House, and is a major beneficiary of federal spending. Strictly look at narrow, immediate self-interest, I suppose I could see AB's case a little easier, but I'm not sure that I think they're getting screwed per se. Nor do I think that comprehensive decentralization of power is justified because of one wealthy province.

That's why I asked my question upthread. It seems like the most pertinent issue here. CCLA also seems to think the bill violates both the Charter and the Convention on the Status of Refugees: http://ccla.org/our-work/focus-areas/bill-c-49/#legal as does the Canadian Council for Refugees: http://ccrweb.ca/en/bill-c49-faq At least one lawyer predicted a large number of charter challenges: http://www.chaudharylaw.com/site/cms/on-bill-c-49-and-greedy-immigration-lawyers/ I just read the relevant portions of the legislative summary of the bill and the Charter. While I'm not a lawyer and can't say much for sure, I can see how the bill itself could be challenged or could lead to an excessive number of challenges of particular arrests or detentions.

In any case, Quebec doesn't have any real veto, does it? We have a Constitution and Charter after all. You're just arguing for some sort of de facto veto exercised via threats and blackmail?

So apparently I forgot Grade 8 history. Still, as Jack notes, nothing about the Quebec Act seems to give a precedent for the province having any kind of veto power. Provisions to protect the Catholic faith and French language and civil law do not grant a province the kind of constitutional power that August is talking about. By the way, I don't share Argus's view of Quebec. I think it's tremendously fertile culturally and am disappointed by the sort of relationship it seems to have with the rest of the country.

You know that this is not the definition of socialism, right?

Both the public and private sectors can create jobs.

You know, I actually agree with your main point but not so much with some of the rest of this rhetoric? At the least, I don't think it's fair to call the French language backwards!

It might not lower prices but it would seem that a well-run Crown oil corporation could generate significant government revenue for a time. In the long run, we should be looking to wean ourselves off oil dependency anyway and public control and planning could help here.

That should be "...half a century", sorry.

Well, the benefit seems more direct in Norway's case since their oil resources are publicly owned to a significant degree. You're right about taxes but most of the profit from our oil resources would seem to still go to whichever corporations are exploiting them. I guess it depends on whether a privatized system is so much more efficient that our net benefit is still greater than it would be with public ownership. (Btw, my impression was that most of our oil is sold to the US?)

Ha, well, not exactly. I mean, I said "keeps". And I still think he's much better than the alternative (unless the ONDP can REALLY get their act together).

McGuinty keeps making it harder for me to like him.

Decision stayed until April 29: http://www.torontolife.com/daily/informer/the-feds/2010/12/02/weekend-plans-ruined-prostitution-still-effectively-illegal-in-ontario/

'We' only benefit directly if we fall into the categories delineated in your first quoted sentence, right?

Out of curiosity, does anyone have info re what specific aspects of the bill would violate which parts of the Charter, according to the Opposition? And what the govt's response is?

Why shouldn't he make that speech at an assembly? Students at my school sometimes made comparable speeches when running for head boy or head girl and were not punished for it.

These are reasons why there should be more investment in public transportation (as opposed to failed auto companies or suburban rec centres), not less. I don't use public transportation in Windsor either for similar reasons but I would if we had a better system. When I lived in Montreal, I never felt the need for a car, unless I actually needed to transport a number of heavy items. Many cities in the world do have effective public transit systems that are used by a large number of people. I'm not saying public transit would replace cars entirely but it would make a big difference for many people. Ultimately, I just think that deficit-driven public spending should go towards projects that are under public control with a public interest in mind, rather than bailing out for-profit private corporations with few strings attached. If public funds are used to salvage industries, I would tend to favour at least temporarily nationalizing them.

High school teachers, coaches, and administrators are not academics.