« The problem of poor whites | Main | Freedom, fried? »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

How about "Ut Omnes Unum Sint" (John 17:21, the farewell discourse of Jesus at the Ascension) meaning "That all may be one"?

I refer to the need to demolish interprovincial trade barriers, unify securities trading under a single Federal Act and generally revive the much-abused Trade & Commerce Power in Section 91.

This isn't Biblical, but I always liked Tacitus' "Omne ignotum pro magnifico". Loosely translated, it means "all things look grand/magnificent until understood". In other words, the things we don't understand look impressive, but upon understanding they are much simpler. This seems like a good prescription for more reason and more freedom.

It's from a treatise on grammar, but it's best known as a favorite phrase of Sherlock Holmes, from "The Red-Headed League".

[Friday afternoon and toungue somewhat in cheek :)]
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.


Or for those thinking their personal house is an asset not a liability - ignorance is bliss

"We'll take care of our barbarians and you'll take care of yours." ( Emperor Franz Josepph to the Hungarian Parliament on the establishment of the dual monarchy.)
Don't try to unify too much. As much as is absolutely necessary, no more.

"We'll take care of our barbarians and you'll take care of yours." ( Emperor Franz Josepph to the Hungarian Parliament on the establishment of the dual monarchy.)
Don't try to unify too much. As much as is absolutely necessary, no more.

I refer to the opinion of Quebec's business class that they would prefer a national securities regime too.

The Austria-Hungary is also a disingenuous reference because it failed as a state. The Hungarian Parliament, always more nationalist than the Austrian one, was also more difficult and less tolerant of its minorities, which included Croatia at the time as well as Slovakia and large parts of what is now Romania.

The German Kaiser remarked in WWI that he was shackled to a corpse (Austria-Hungary).

The only common ministries in Austria-Hungary were the Imperial Household, Finance and Defence. Everything else was done by joint agreement between Vienna and Budapest, including joint affairs under the joint ministries. Every ten years a constitutional crisis would come along like clockwork as the common funding agreements and tariff levels had to be renewed.

I also point out that Canada has had a national criminal law since 1867 and criminal law is Ottawa's purview alone. No province can define what murder is, for example. Quebec has used the same common criminal law as everybody else since 1763 without complaint.

With respect, sometimes the PQ's views add up to wanting the Federal Government to be small enough to drown in a bathtub.

Australia enacted a national securities regulator ten years ago, but the used their Referral Power, the one thing our Constitution lacks. The states can and do transfer jurisdiction to the Commonwealth by declaring themselves "unable to legislate" in a given area by ordinary statute.

Austria-Hungary failed. Showing why it shouldn't have existed.
Australia can do that because they feel they ( even Western Australia) are the same country and thus the distribution of powers is a matter of efficiency, the way a good many English-Candians feel is the case between the federal and the provinces. That's not how I and a lot of us feel here. And declaring oneself unable to legislate would so hearten The Globe & Mail, there's no way a QC government would do that...The prime minister who would do it would have his eyes gouged out by his grandmother.
PQ (and me personnally) don't want to have a small candian government. You can have the size you want. Just don't let it govern my people...
Good many QC businesspeople would accept a common securities commission. They would also accept that QC disappear at all. Would make things simpler. Will happen, but just not immediately.
We use the canadian criminal code. We could all use the danish one : most countries have the same view of murder and theft: they disapprove. Apart from the weird american fixation ( the South in fact)with the death penalty most western countries have basically the same code with the same gradation of crimes. The most efficient at policing can make do with lesser punishments. And contrary to what The Gazette editorial board seems to think, we wouldn't legalize human sacrifice...

Well, breathing life into this worthwhile and under-commented-on thread.

Actually, I will be in Montreal April 12-14, I am a delegate for my Riding Association to the NDP Convention. I am also trying to move to Montreal permanently for a job *knocks wood*.

One the policy proposals I am taking to the Convention is to overhaul Section 94 to give laws passed under it a 5-year time limit, so that provinces can use it and then get their powers back if they want out. Section 94 lets the Feds legislate directly on Property & Civil Rights with provincial consent. I would also write Quebec in because right now you can't use it. In effect, my proposal creates a Canadian counterpart of the Referral Power in Australia, which is the one big feature of the Oz Constitution ours lacks.

The other proposal is on Supreme Court bilingual abilities for judges; I am all for it. As an NDP Activist to a Bloc Activist, I have to say I saw the free lunch first and I ate it.

And contrary to what The Gazette editorial board seems to think, we wouldn't legalize human sacrifice...

If that's a reference to the Assisted Suicide "debate" it wasn't funny. Scare quotes intentional, there's no debate, it's illegal.

It is not a reference to the "end-of-life" debate.
Merely to the usual scra enjoyed by the angryphone. Sorry if you took it wrong. It was not my intention.

Well, just to liven things up, how about the following African warrior cry used to rally fighters as a national slogan:
"Zemk' inkomo magwalandini!"
Which translate into:
"The enemy has captured the cattle, you cowards!"
I suppose it might be seen as overly nationalistic and assertive and not reflective of our past. perhaps we could substitute wheat or lumber for cattle.

"Good many QC businesspeople would accept a common securities commission."

Perhaps, but only if didn't consist of the same people who make up the AMF (who are recognized as being as a pain in the A**). But, in practice, that isn't likely to be the case, so...

The real problem with a national regulator is that there isn't an obvious legislative gap that allows people to engage in abusive transactions, fraud and the like (although, let's be honest, there also isn't a lot of substantive difference between the provincial securities regimes). It's a competence gap on the part of the provincial regulators. And it isn't clear how having those same people hired by the federal government (which, let's face it, is how a national regulator would work) will change anything (certainly the experience of the SEC is not all that comforting, nor is the experience of the RCMPs IMET team in enforcing Canada's various criminal provisions applicable to capital markets).

I don't blame Quebequers for not wanting a national securities regulator, lots of English Canadians aren't keen on one either.

The Feds, as the largest public service and with longstanding merit provisions have long been the most adept bureaucracy in the country.

With the OPP in Ontario I always thought IMET wouldn't go that far.

On the Securities Reference, when I read that I got the distinct sense that it was a bit of a sham put on for show. I recall that a good friend of mine, a senior public servant, said that at this level, court cases are often about positioning for negotiations rather than an end game. Also that policy and law are fused at this level.

The oddest thing was that the Supreme Court said that had the Federal case been better grounded, that is used more than just the General Trade & Commerce Power, it probably have succeeded and they were disappointed that the Federal argument was so pithy.

In retrospect, the Feds may have been keeping their powder dry, they put forth a weak argument, knew they would lose to the provinces and let that be the negotiating position with the provinces happy.

I suspect this is the case as reportedly Ontario, Alberta and the Feds are still talking about a deal.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

    WWW
    worthwhile.typepad.com
Blog powered by Typepad