More progressive, less conservative
1) The Supreme Court of Canada
2) confirms federal jurisdiction over a subject,
3) and is congratulated for doing so by a Conservative
4) provincial government
5) of Newfoundland and Labrador
6) headed by Danny Williams,
7) which intervened
8) in support of the federal government's position.
Won’t that just rot the right-wing “provincial rights!” crowd seven ways to Sunday?
posted by WJM @ 9:17 PM
35 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I had no problem with the argument of the government of Quebec. I certainly don't buy the argument that the government of Canada is any sort of great guardian of standards. The government of Canada has frequently rebuffed all provinces in their demands for certain standards to be met. If anything, provinces are leaders in setting standards.
As usual, Wallace, you seem unable to do anything except profile conservatives who favour more provincial rights and decentralization in this federation as all from the same cookie cutter. Also as usual, you offer no explanation. Great straw man.
There are as many different views on provincial rights as there are people in provinces. EI is hardly a commonly contested or more commonly held area of focus for people interested in decentralization.
This is about as remarkable as the drying of paint. What's up? Slow blog week?
Certainly no slower than a week in which people are subjected to name-calling, tired old and unsubtantive arguments are trotted out once again, such an important target as Svend Robinson is attacked...neeed I go on?
Nationalist? Provincialist? Who knows with O'Brien. The only thing we can say for certain is that he is anti-Liberal and anti-Ottawa. He will consistently make anything and everything into a partisan and anti-Ottawa tirade.
In this instance, as in others, it is obvious he is also bordering on the delusional. there was no "profiling" or anything like it - by profiling I take it to mean that as in racial profiling, certain political beliefs are presumed to be the cause of certain bad things.
Again, the only consistent pattern here would seem to be that O'brien commits the fault and then blames everyone else for doing it.
The archtypical grit-loather/Grit-"profiler" assumes that if someone elses mentions the political philosophy of his own aprty, they must be doing so critically.
Aw Ed, really - for somebody who claims he's done with the flame wars, you just can't resist laying in the tall grass on other peoples' websites. . .
Wallace McLean at least has a website where people have the freedom to comment. You continue to embarass yourself by availing of services you deny to your readers.
Svend Robinson is important in many circles. Just not yours or mine.
If you actually understood the definition of "Nationalist," instead of immediately mistrusting/attacking anyone who has such a designation, you might not see as much of a conflict between that term and "provincialist."
As for Liberals, I have given credit where credit is due. Roger Grimes had enough guts and sense to at least put forward a white paper that laid out a blueprint for empowering NL on fisheries. Your ignore that. You alos ignore many other Liberals that I have supported. It's sad to see you stalk the sites looking for opportunities to attack me. If you had any guts, you'd do so in the comments section of my blog -- or (heaven forbid) allow a bit of discussion on your own. . . I suspect you prefer this venue becuase you know very well that you haven't been able to back up most of your claims about me.
You're ten times the partisan I am -- to the point that you seem to find partisan conspiracies in everything from prime ministerial rankings (where I rank a Liberal names Wilfred Laurier 3rd place) to municipal elections (where I voted for at least one Liberal - not sure about osme of the others). The only partisan tirades I see is the ever present anti"connie" rantings on your blog. At least have the guts to admit your own partisanship before attacking others. It's ok Ed, you come by it honestly, you're an ex political staffer who served in the court of Clyde Kirby Wells! So admit that your strip affects you deeply on these issues. It's painfully obvious in your posts and on your blog.
The profiling here is obvious --- Wally wanted to set up a stereotype cookie-cutter provincial rights character to react-against. It's a silly exercise, and a useless one. . . kinda like you pretending that only one of us is in any way partisan . . .
When have I engaged in profiling Ed? If I call you an Ottawa Apologist, I do so because you seem intent on apologizing for and defendiing some of their worst policies. If I call you a Liberal apologist, it's because of comments like the one you left on my blog defending the bought-off David Dingwall of Cape Breton Liberal fame. . .
Anyone who has followed Wallace's blog with actual care to his writings (As opposed to what you do - wait for me to post something and respond to me) . . would know very well what the context is and what Wallace thinks of "right wing" "provincial rights" people etc. [Though I stand to be corrected - by Wally].
Really Ed, try to be consistent in your actions and decisions re comments. With every passing comment, the hypocrisy grows.
I had no problem with the argument of the government of Quebec.
Relevance? My post was about the Williams government, which DID. I find that amusing.
The government of Canada has frequently rebuffed all provinces in their demands for certain standards to be met.
Which ones?
As usual, Wallace, you seem unable to do anything except profile conservatives who favour more provincial rights and decentralization in this federation as all from the same cookie cutter.
What do you mean, "as usual"?
Point to the numerous other times I've done that. Thanks!
Also as usual, you offer no explanation. Great straw man.
You really don't know the definition of "straw man", do you?
There are as many different views on provincial rights as there are people in provinces. EI is hardly a commonly contested or more commonly held area of focus for people interested in decentralization.
Boy, you don't know the history of the EI program and the Canadian constitution then!
This is about as remarkable as the drying of paint. What's up? Slow blog week?
Wasn't aware I was any obligation to post at a certain frequency.
The government of Canada has often refused certain funding without getting to attach strings to the money, showing its mistrust in provincial governments. The money was needed precisely in order to raise standards of care in each province.
Which Canadian provinces, besides Quebec, have been contesting EI at any point in the last three or four decades? Moreover, are thr provincialists in Quebec all "right wing"???
What's this talk about obligations? Keep responding to comments that nobody made, it's funny.
Which Canadian provinces, besides Quebec, have been contesting EI at any point in the last three or four decades?
Who said anything about three or four decades?
Moreover, are thr provincialists in Quebec all "right wing"???
Utterly irrelevant! My rhetorical question was about those provincialists who are also right-wingers; the presence of non-right-wing provincialists is utterly beside the point.
What's this talk about obligations? Keep responding to comments that nobody made, it's funny.
Sure thing, Mr. "last three or four decades"...
Incidentally, your comment:
you seem unable to do anything except profile conservatives who favour more provincial rights and decentralization in this federation as all from the same cookie cutter
is not a little bizarre. I was, in fact, drawing attention to a provincial conservative who is quite obviously NOT a frothing right-wing loon. In fact, as is par for the course, measured on the left-right axis, as near as I can tell, Danny's utterly indistinguishable from a Liberal! That's typical of party politics in all four Atlantic provinces, though.
I was pointing out a case of a Conservative who does not fit the "cookie cutter", and in any event, the cookie cutter is a figment of your imagination, not my words.
So, reading comprehension... not your strong suit. Logic? Uhn-uh. How ever did you pass that LSAT anyway?
Carry on!
Well Wally, I guess you admit there is no currency in the debate re EI jurisdiction between the feds and the provinces (que excluded). So please feel free to live in the past and pretend as if there is an ongoing battle here or that this is a key issue for most provincial rights advocates...
Which "provincialists" who are "also right wing" are you talking about. Be specific. Name the windmill this week.
And when you get challenged in the slightest, Wallace, you choose to use the cheapest kind of personal attacks. Grow up.
I asked you why you think there is a cookie cutter for "provincialists" who are right of centre. You respond by ignoring that completely.
Try answering questions instead of dodging them. Pretend you're outside the adscam war room this time in your answer.
I guess your reading comprehension is is suffering under the pressure. . .
I guess you admit there is no currency in the debate re EI jurisdiction between the feds and the provinces (que excluded).
Not at all!
So please feel free to live in the past
The Responsible Government League has no leg to stand on accusing anyone of "living in the past".
Which "provincialists" who are "also right wing" are you talking about. Be specific. Name the windmill this week.
Liam O'Brien is a right-wing provincialist, for starters.
And when you get challenged in the slightest, Wallace, you choose to use the cheapest kind of personal attacks. Grow up.
Have you read Responsible Government League's blog lately? Talk about cheap personal attacks and a need to grow up...
I asked you why you think there is a cookie cutter for "provincialists" who are right of centre.
I reject the premise of your question! I don't beleive there is such a cookie-cutter. If you could read, you'd see that was pretty much the point of my post: Exhibit A, Danny William!
I guess your reading comprehension is is suffering under the pressure. . .
The pressure of what?
Wally, when I make a comment about a political battle or event or whatever in the past, it's clear to most people who have basic reading comprehnsion skills that I am indeed talking about something from the past.
This post was you speculating about what would right wing "provincialists" thing of the recent SCC ruling . . . as if the jurisdiction over EI was in any way releveant to most of these myseterious "provincialists" at this time -- the time of the ruling .
Then when prodded you admitted that the EI jurisdiction is a matter for history in most of the country and hasn't been an issue for 3 or 4 decades.
You obviously have forgotten even what you wrote yourself You pointed out that Provincial Government of Danny Williams was in support of the decision. So that was the big event for you - part of what you are talking about. THEN {NEW THOUGHT} you wondered what the "right wing provincialists" thought. . . So stop dodging the question ...
who is this group of "right wing provincialists" sezed with or concerned with EI jurisdiction? You had a group in mind. You must have had names in mind. provide examples or admit it was an utter and complete windmill.
Oh yeah, I forgot, you like those...
This post was you speculating about what would right wing "provincialists" thing of the recent SCC ruling . . . as if the jurisdiction over EI was in any way releveant to most of these myseterious "provincialists" at this time -- the time of the ruling.
No, speculating about what they would think of their Glorious Leader not only lending legitimacy to the Supreme Court that they vilify, but intervening in support of federal jurisdiction over a subject-matter.
Then when prodded you admitted that the EI jurisdiction is a matter for history in most of the country and hasn't been an issue for 3 or 4 decades.
Relevant... how again?
You obviously have forgotten even what you wrote yourself You pointed out that Provincial Government of Danny Williams was in support of the decision.
Is that how you summarize my posting, that Danny's government was "in support of the decision"?
Wow.
You're even dumber than I gave you credit for.
You must have had names in mind.
Why must I have? I don't hang with that crowd!
And one more thing: from now on you will keep your postings in this blog civil. Debate issues all you want, but personal insults directed at anyone will be deleted on site, with extreme prejudice. You will depersonalize your interventions, or you will make none at all.
This is a blog, not a democracy.
I actually try not to respond in my own blog. I'm not the Sun chain, either.
I'll let posters discuss ISSUES, respectfully. Leave the bloggers' and posters' personalities out of it, though.
Sorry to see legitimate comments deleted here by owner.
I'll ask again -- who are the "right wing provincialists" who are led by Danny Williams who will be rotted (or even care much) about EI jurisdiction?
Who are the "right wing provincial rights crowd" interested in EI Jurisdiction?
I'll ask again -- who are the "right wing provincialists" who are led by Danny Williams who will be rotted (or even care much) about EI jurisdiction?
Don't know. My post didn't mention such people.
Who are the "right wing provincial rights crowd" interested in EI Jurisdiction?
No idea. Why do you ask? I never mentioned such people.
OK.
Who is the "crowd" mention here:
[taken from body of main post]
"Won’t that just rot the right-wing “provincial rights!” crowd seven ways to Sunday?
Who is this "crowd"?
Who is this "crowd"?
People who are right-wing and fond of enlarging provincial governments' powers.
So you don't know of any . . . understood....
I do know of any.
Why do you want to know their names?
Liam:
Now that I have caught up with this little comments thread, let's set a few things straight.
1. I'll leave aside all the nonsense in your comments and focus on the issue at hand, namely the feds and areas of provincial jurisdiction.
2. I took Wally's comment for what it was - a deliberate attempt to provoke. It worked in spades.
3. That said, your comments on Ottawa and its interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction are well founded but only up to a point. Ottawa tends to attach strings to the money as you call, in order to bring some common standards to program delivery and ensure that transfers for health are not spent on something else.
4. Ottawa is not simply a cash pool to support provincial governments. You may feel that way - note the verb may - but I certainly do not. I believe in a balance between areas of national interest and jurisdiction and those of provincial or local jurisdiction.
5. To make it clear, I consider "provincialist" those who tend to reflexively support provincial governments at all times and in all places.
There may be some variation in their position but by and large they tend toward a view of Canada that is bordering on the UN in some instances. This is largely my own typology so I never claimed it was perfect.
In your own case, based solely ont he stuff you've posted to your blog I'd suggest you are borderline independentist and maybe closely akin to a Quebec soft-nationalist. But hey, that's just based on stuff like your prison rape comment.
Ed, both yourself and Wallace keep speaking of these reflexive and/or right wing "provincialists" but are unable to provide any examples. I submit that these nameless faceless "people," do not exist. You both have had 20+ opprtunities now to be more specific and have not been able (or willing) to do so. I was asking about the "crowd" Wally was referring to in the actual main post here -- the ones who would be benmt out of shape over EI jurisdiction and Williams govt's position on it. . . Apparently it doesn't exist, so it can't be terrible concerned about anything...
As for the seperate point you make about standards, I think the most important thing is to judge ourselves as a province against standards worldwide and strive to raise the standards as much as possible on that level. I think provincial governments, in areas such as health care, have demonstrated they are capable of setting standards to meet the needs of their peopel themselves. Quality and Access should be more important than some arbitrary Ottawa-set parity with everyone else. Why limit ourselves in that way? As you recently reminded Rick Bouzane and Jim Bennett about fisheries being federal, The provision of health care is the constitutional responsibility of the provincial governments.
If you disagree with the current arrangement, why not support an ammendment or reform? (just as I support reform in order to get joint managment of fisheries) Why support the current shell game of trying to micromanage health care from Ottawa?
When Medicare finally caught on in Canada, there was indeed an agreement that Ottawa would fund 50% and that it would leave decision making to the provinces.
Do I personally believe in greater decentralization in Canada? Absolutely. I know many more, not just conservative-leaning types, who agree or who have agreed over the years. And I let people know about the specific areas where I believe it is needed. My point, in responding to this blog post was to illustrate that jurisdiction over EI isn't really an issue that I've seen any "crowd" of "provincialists" harping on about any time recently-- except perhaps in Quebec . . . I've asked for evidence to the contrary and I have recieved absolutely nothing. I guess I came to the right conclusion on that one.
Oh and one more thing: There's absolutely nothing about being a "nationalist" that need lead somebody to be an "independist" or a separatist or anything else of the sort. In a federal system such as ours we shouldn't fear people who are NL or Quebec or Western "nationalists." It's perfectly acceptable and legitimate inside a federation. However, if there are people out there, such as Jean Chretien or David Orchard or Jack Layton or Dalton Camp or whoever of whatever party who view provinces as nuisances and federalism as a holdback, they may not share this view. Of course, if their favourable view of centralization had prevailed at certain points in history, it's unlikely there'd be as many provinces or pieces of "Canada" in Canada afterall . . .
I submit that these nameless faceless "people," do not exist.
There are no right-wing provincialists?
You both have had 20+ opprtunities now to be more specific and have not been able (or willing) to do so.
Why do you want names?
This reminds me of that old Family Circus cartoon where the father has one of the kids by the side of a road, looking into a farmer's field, full of cows, and the kid asks the farmer, "what are their names?"
I was asking about the "crowd" Wally was referring to in the actual main post here -- the ones who would be benmt out of shape over EI jurisdiction and Williams govt's position on it. . .
You are fixated on the narrow issue of EI jurisdiction. My post was about the broader issues of the role of the Supreme Court and the irony of a "provincialist" premier not only intervening in a Supreme Court case, but doing so in support of the federal government having jurisdiction over something.
Apparently it doesn't exist, so it can't be terrible concerned about anything...
Again, are you denying that there are right-wing provincialists? In my experience, they very much exist. I don't know why I'd have to name names in order to prove that, though.
Stephen "Firewalls!" Harper is a right-wing provincialist. There. A name!
There aren't any right wing provincialists who are seized with EI jurisdiction, No. You couldn't provide any after umpteen requests.
If your post wanted to explore the views of a premier who you consider to be "provincialist," it might be helpful to see where he stands on issues that tend to mean something to "provincialist" premiers and "provincialist" conservatives. It might also help to determine if Danny is either terribly right wing/conservative OR "provincialist" . .
Would Stephen Harper be "rotted" six ways to Sunday because of a decision on EI jurisdiction?
If you actually read what I wrote, I clearly said that you should name the right wing provincialists who would in any way care about this decision or Danny's govt's reaction to it / participation in it. . .
And if I wasn't clear enough, I hope that clarifies it.
So who are they? Who's gonna be "rotted" by this?
There aren't any right wing provincialists who are seized with EI jurisdiction,
Why do you keep fixating on EI jursidiction, rather than the broader issues?
Forest vs. trees.
It might also help to determine if Danny is either terribly right wing/conservative OR "provincialist" . .
How is Danny Williams relevant?
Would Stephen Harper be "rotted" six ways to Sunday because of a decision on EI jurisdiction?
No, but he would be rotted by the Supreme Court merely making a decision.
If you actually read what I wrote, I clearly said that you should name the right wing provincialists who would in any way care about this decision or Danny's govt's reaction to it / participation in it. . .
Why should I?
I'm not focusing on the "broader issues" because your initial post was about a court decision on EI. It was a poor example to use it you wanted to talk about provincial rights that matter to the "right wing provincialist crowd."
Your initial posting (on main screen) spoke about Danny's govt's position on the ruling. I guess you think this is relevant somehow. Answer your own question on that one. You wrote about it.
I think you should be able to name a few of the "right wing provincialists" that are concerned with this EI ruling because I don't believe they exist. I assert that they are a figment of your imagination. . . and it's an assertion that's gaining support with every refusal to name them. . .
I'm not focusing on the "broader issues" because your initial post was about a court decision on EI.
No, it was about the bizarre situation of a province intervening at the Supreme Court of Canada to argue that the federal government has jurisdiction over something!
It was a poor example to use it you wanted to talk about provincial rights that matter to the "right wing provincialist crowd."
Go talk to Rona Ambrose!
Your initial posting (on main screen) spoke about Danny's govt's position on the ruling.
No, Liam, it spoke about Danny's govt's position IN THE HEARING.
I think you should be able to name a few of the "right wing provincialists" that are concerned with this EI ruling because I don't believe they exist.
I don't care whether there are right-wing provincialists who are concerned with this particular ruling.
My point is about right-wing provincialists, their constant bitching about the federal government and the Supreme Court, IN GENERAL.
I assert that they are a figment of your imagination. . .
You're a right-wing provincialist.
Stephen Harper is a right-wing provincialist.
Rona Ambrose is a right-wing provincialist.
Or they would be.
You've just told me, though, that none of you exist. Bye!
Try again.
How are any of your examples - Rona, Steve or myself "rotted" re the intervening or the ruling?
Each time you have chosen to ignore the full question --
Would Stephen Harper be "rotted" six ways to Sunday because of a decision on EI jurisdiction or an intervention?
Where are those right wing provincialists? You thought they were worthy of mentioning. Now show me the ones who are all "rotted." I'd like to see them.
How are any of your examples - Rona, Steve or myself "rotted" re the intervening or the ruling?
I don't know! That's why it's so much fun to speculate.
Each time you have chosen to ignore the full question --
You don't get to decide what MY full question was or is.
Would Stephen Harper be "rotted" six ways to Sunday because of a decision on EI jurisdiction or an intervention?
Stephen Harper, from my knowledge of the man, would be "rotted" to have the Supreme Court ever decide anything in the way of constitutional interpretation, except, of course, when said Stepehn Harper is the appellant (as in Harper v. Canada
Rona Ambrose has crusaded against the maternity benefits in the House as an intrusion into what she perceives as provincial jurisdiction.
Where are those right wing provincialists? You thought they were worthy of mentioning.
I mentioned right-wing provincialists who hate the federal government and the Supreme Court.
Anything further, I've already either supported with evidence if relevant... But most of your futher points are irrelevant.
You know, Carbolic Smoke Ball isn't important because of the carbolic smoke balls...
I am the one who asked the question -- who are the right-wing provincialists that were to be "rotted." I asked that. Not you. I asked it.
And you just answered it. You were speculating. Fair enough. I guess the speculation has not added up to any actual right wing provincialists getting "rotted" over EI jurisdiction case or its participants...
I certainly don't think that you've proven in any way shape or form that Ambrose or Harper would be "rotted" by any of the aforementioned in any real way. You also haven't really shown in any way that they "hate" the federal government or the Supreme Court.
The most interesting thing about this post is not the post but the series of very aggressive comments posts that it generated.
I am still at a loss, frankly to understand why such obvious provocation garnered such a consistent response.
But it is even more peculiar when the first reply from Liam basically takes a provinces versus Ottawa stance, clearly favouring the former.
This case, if I recall correctly was actually about who had jurisdiction not which of the two (f or p) was more virginal, pure or right.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ed, I just wanted to call Wallace on his claims about how much any right wing "provincialist" was "rotted" with this situation. I'm at a loss as to why he continued to refuse to answer a direct question until finally admitting it was just some speculation. . . bad speculation it turns out . .
No problem here. I'm satisfied with Wallace's admission of pure and unsupported speculation.
Ed, I just wanted to call Wallace on his claims about how much any right wing "provincialist" was "rotted" with this situation.
Where did I so claim?
I'm at a loss as to why he continued to refuse to answer a direct question until finally admitting it was just some speculation. . . bad speculation it turns out . .
What is bad about it?
No problem here. I'm satisfied with Wallace's admission of pure and unsupported speculation.
What's unsupported about it?
I am the one who asked the question -- who are the right-wing provincialists that were to be "rotted."
I didn't say any right-wing provincialists WERE rotted.
I said -- you are not capable of such subtleties, obviously -- that in the name of consistency, they ought to be.
And you just answered it. You were speculating. Fair enough. I guess the speculation has not added up to any actual right wing provincialists getting "rotted" over EI jurisdiction case or its participants...
Liam: Look in Hansard. Look at Rona Ambrose's statements. Read her words.
You also haven't really shown in any way that they "hate" the federal government or the Supreme Court.
Liam, I'm not going to get into another goddamn footnoting battle with you.
There are many members of your (federal) party whose antipathy for the Supreme Court is one of their badges of honour. You may choose to disbelieve it, but at least have the decency to not lie and deny it.
There are many members of your (provincial and fedarl) parties whose antipathy for the federal governemnt one of their badges of honour. You may choose to disbelieve it, but at least have the decency to not lie and deny it.
You don't footnote your postings, so I don't feel under the obligation to footnote mine. And I've told you where to find Rona Hardware's statements. If you choose not to look it up, that's your choice.
This thread, by the way, is now closed.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home