I feel like I am 15 again

What the?!! I really don't know where to begin with this. I mean, I think my head is going to explode. I mean, "He also pledged to recognize provincial autonomy 'as well as the special cultural and institutional responsibilities of the Quebec government.'" ?!

Everyone, typically, is focused on all the inside baseball stuff of "he's doing this to get the support of Ontario by looking like a viable national leader." Sure, fine, whatever - but what about the substance?!

Let's go to the instant replay to see if I've got this right: 1) The Liberals form the government forever. 2) Brian Mulroney promises to bring Quebec into the constitution, promises to recognize the "distinct" nature of Quebec society. 3) Conservatives under Mulroney get elected. 4) Meech Lake accord is reached. 5) ROC goes nutsoid. 6) Meech fails. 7) The Reform Party gets created (okay, a few years earlier, but whatever). 8) The Tories lose a million seats. 9) Reform wins all those seats out West. 10) Liberals form the government forever. 11) Reform decides to get together with the old Tories to beat the Liberals. 12) Stephen Harper promises to bring Quebec into the constitution, promises to recognize the "special" cultural and institutional responsibilities of the Quebec government.

Now, many people may wish to question Harper's honesty and motives for putting forth this plan. And those are questions that should be asked. But let's get one thing straight. Looking at the substance of what he said today (and I am sure there are weasel words in there to get him out of any real promise), if Stephen Harper intends to follow through on the substance of what he said today, he is promising Meech II.

As I said, the head, she spins.

The Prime Minister's response was, apparently, "We are one country and we speak with one voice . . . not two and not 10". The most immediate question is when Jean Lapierre will quit the party. If not, one might have to suggest to him, as his people once did to Mr. Chretien on the convention floor in Calgary, that he is "Vendu!"

I wanted to make this more coherent, but I am just so excitable when it comes to this stuff. Yes, I was only 15 at the time, but those were the glory days of my political junky-ism.

That is all.

Translator for PM

Well, my decision has been made. I vote for Gilles Duceppe's English translator. I have never heard a translator put so much heart and soul into a performance. I can't be sure, but I am fairly confident he threw in that Yogi Berra quote on his own. Brilliant.

Too bad my internet doesn't work in the basement...

...I could liveblog the French debates!

Maybe I will just make it up afterwords. I am sure someone will land the "force majeure".

I think the re-occurring theme of this blog will be things I could blog about...but won't.

Hey, I found my user name

Now I can once again reveal all my deepest, moving, brilliant thoughts. So. How about that election, eh?

Really?!

I generally consider myself somewhat of a news junky, particularly when it comes to the top courts in the U.S. and Canada. And maybe it is just a factor of my age, but I was totally unaware of this. Between the race card in N.O., and this, Jack Shafer has been on a total role this past couple of weeks.

The new iTunes look

What do I think of the corners? This I will jump on. I love 'em. If I believed, as Lileks does , that it was the One True Future of the Mac UI, I'd be thrilled. As it stands now it's one of 4 or 5 window designs currently at play (in Tiger alone, for cryin' out loud), and that's no good. I'd really like an update that makes everything look like iTunes 5, but given what we've seen in the past, that's not likely to happen.

h/t: M-Dogg

Best non-quote of the day

Is it me or is this the best notable non-quote you have seen in awhile? In other words, the long-awaited subway to York University will be completed "sometime in the future". Aside from some likely inflammatory comments in the early Harris years, has not every right-minded person in Toronto always known that "eventually" the subway would have to get extended? Wasn't it always just a question of "financial issues"? Is this news? Well done, Greg Sorbara, on making the government's position of "someday, we might have money to do this...if other people pay for it," a news story.

Geez, gas prices sure are high.

Remember when even just a buck a litre made people really angry?

Federalism. It's a good thing. Right?

Okay, I will admit it. My favourite blogger whose name doesn't rhyme with "Ball Smells" is Mickey Kaus. Sometimes he is wrong, and sometimes (always) he is too smug. And sure, he works for "The Man" (albeit no longer Bill Gates). But I do always enjoy his dissection of the conventional wisdom. Today he went for the proverbial jugular of what every good Canadian polisci/law student knows as the God's honest truth. Federalism. Now, sure, everyone's got their hair in a tizzy over this Katrina mess, and perhaps Kaus is not the "Island of Calm" he claims to be, but has instead caught a case of Sullivan's "excitability" that he routinely mocks. But that being said, I think he raises an interesting normative question that is quite rarely raised in either the U.S. or Canada: Is federalism actually a good thing, or just an inefficient fluke of history?

The starting point for Kaus' inquiry is the (seemingly) needless requests for permission and subsequent jockeying for position (and funding) occasioned by the bifurcated soveriegnty of U.S. Katrina-relief efforts. But any breathing Canadian will recognize this process from the endless (and endlessly boring) jockeying we see on the on the news every day. Health care. Equalization payments. Oil revenues. Immigration. All the premiers get together and say the federal government should send them more money (the bigger provinces also ask for more powers). The federal government hems and haws, and eventually gives them some money. The some money is rarely a solution for a generation. But it usually works until next month. Of course, we must have these debates because they reflect the division of sovereignty in our fine nation between the provinces and the federal government. Sovereignties that are enshrined in our Constitution and which are the emanation of an historic compromise between our founding fathers. And of course we could never get rid of it, for a hundred and one reasons of politics. But really, is it any good? Or does it just create needless duplicity and political complication? [Note to 2020 A.D: Dear Political Opponents/Members of the Judicial Review Committee, I am really just thinking out loud, give me a break. "Political Opponents/Judicial Review Committee"?? That's some ego you have. - Ed. Hey, I'm just covering my bases, did you see all the background stuff they're digging up on Roberts, and besides, who are you? I said I liked Mickey Kaus, I didn't say I was him.]

The way I see it, there are two basic defences for maintaining Canadian federalism:

1) In a country as disperse and diverse as ours, people need a level of government that is closer to them, to reflect their values and culture; and

2) Laboratories of democracy! If different provinces can tackle the same issue the best policy will rise to the top. Like a fine cream.

Number 1 seems like the stronger argument to me, or at least the most realistic. That being said, as Canada develops into a diverse multicultural smorgasborg (which is a good thing), the need for these artificial provincial barriers to protect our diversity would seem to be greatly diminished. And if the people need a level of government that is closer to them, to provide them with services "on the ground", wouldn't municipal governments (perhaps more broadly conceived) be more effective?

With respect to Number 2, I have an empirical question. Does this EVER happen? Is great policy being made in Saskatchewan on the basis of a successful test of said policy in New Brunswick? Really? Please, do tell. In the case of health care, for instance, the only strategies the premiers ever seem to share are related to scaring up some scratch from rich uncle Paul.

All of which is to say what? I don't know. The thing is, aside from the politics, I think the Canadian public has, genuinely and despite the theoretical difficulty involved, internalized the dual-loyalties notion of federalism. And as a Canadian polisci/law geek, I think that is rather remarkable. But if that is the case, I would hope that Canadians can go one further. Embrace our federalist Constitution for what it is. An obvious example is health care. [Note to 2020: see above.] Provinces are in charge of health. Then why do we have the Canada Health Act? One province doesn't want universal single-payer health care? Fine, its government was democratically elected, it shall be our laboratory of democracy.

This may make some people nervous. It makes me nervous too. But if we can't allow the provincial governments the freedom to exercise their sovereignty in this clear area of provincial jurisdiction, then why do we even bother to keep them around? Inertia! The grand compromise of democratic politics! - Ed. Yes, I agree. Moreover, given the defining power of history, taking the federalism out of Canada would likely take the Canada out of Canada. I was just trying to think about it. Oh, and also, go away.

So who is going to be the next Supreme Court Justice...Canada-style?

Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist passed away this weekend. This has led to a barrage of speculation, ponderation, punditry, questions, conspiracies, and just plain talking about who the next U.S.S.C. justice will be. Here in Canada, we also have a vacant Supreme Court seat that needs filling. Who's going to fill it? Tumbleweed? Crickets? Nobody in Canada seems to care. Sure, Vic Toews complains about process. And Irwin Cotler proposes a Canadian Idol type process to canvass potential nominees from "outside the box". But nobody is actually talking about names. Maybe this is my Toronto-centrism. Maybe the halls of power out west (the likely home of Canada's next Supreme Court justice) are aflutter with rumours. Well I want to hear them. Who is good, who is not? Who are the members of the Manitoba/Saskatchewan (maybe Alberta?) Courts of Appeal that are most likely to be considered? Who's in with the Liberals? Is there a western academic that might make a push? A practitioner? A Queen's Bench judge? There's been talk of a First Nations appointment - who should we be keeping our eye on in this regard?

Everyone's always wringing their hands with concern about "judicial activism" and how the process we should adopt for appointing judges. Fine. Maybe the lack of democratic process is one of the reasons there's so little scuttlebutt. But Supreme Court justices are also people. So let's also talk about the people who may be the next one.

Both idle and informed speculation would be welcomed.

Um, How Does This Work Again?

I think it is something like this.