[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

To add to CC's description, I'd just say that administrative decision makers carry out an ever increasing number of functions - to a great degree, the 'nuts and bolts' of how things are approved and function lies in their hands, across a huge range of activities.

In the case we have been discussing, the administrative decision makers were the provincial law societies, who have the role, in these specific cases, of certifying new law schools.

One of the main issues in such cases is the proper scope of judicial oversight of such decision makers. Judges realize they should generalky defer to "expert tribunals" on matters of fact - but what if they decide cases based on completely irrelevant factors?

The leading case is Roncarelli v. Duplessis (sp?), s 1959 Supreme Court decision (so decided well before the Charter of Rights). In that decision, very basically, a person was refused a liquor license because the then-Priemier of Quebec disliked Jehova's Witnesses ... the Court ruled that this wasn't a relevant consideration in making such a decision, which ought to be based instead on relevant statutory factors, relevant to liquor licensing, and so overturned it.

The relevance of the recent decision is that is seems to cut against Roncarelli. If some vague public policy forms a part of the 'statutory factors', that diluted the notion that the courts ought to be reviewing such decisions to make sure they are based on truly relevant factors.

In this case, many don't care, because most of us have zero sympathy for homophobes who force students to sign a no gay sex pledge ... but it opens the door to weakening judicial oversight altogether, in future cases which may have nothing to do with homophobia.

The ironic result will be to increase legal costs associated with decision-making before such boards and tribunals - because judicial review is weakened, you have to get your best case in before the tribunal itself.

[crazy canuck]

I adopt the comments of my learned friend 

and add some emphasis to his point.  Imagine this kind of unaccountable decision making power the hands of a Trumpist....

[Oexmelin]

I know this, at least - the early "administrative state" is what I study. I was more interested in seeing how you distinguish it, how you characterize its power, etc. 

[Rex Francorum]

Paul Gérin-Lajoie, first "ministre de l'Éducation" in Québec (1964-1966) and a prominent reformer in the Lesage Cabinet during the Quiet Revolution, died today.  /Mourn.

http://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/quebecs-first-education-minister-paul-gerin-lajoie-dies-at-age-98

Paul Gérin-Lajoie, one of the architects of the vast reform of Quebec's education system during the Quiet Revolution, has died at the age of 98. He served as Quebec's first education minister from 1964 to 1966.

Gérin-Lajoie died "surrounded by loved ones" on Monday, according to the foundation he created in 1977.

Gérin-Lajoie was one of the most important ministers in the government of Jean Lesage, who led Quebec from 1960 to 1966. Along with Lesage, René Lévesque and Georges-Émile Lapalme, Gérin-Lajoie worked to modernize Duplessis-era Quebec as soon as the Liberal government was elected in June 1960.

Appointed the minister of youth and responsible for public education, Gérin-Lajoie immediately launched a vast survey on the education of Quebecers, a task he entrusted to renowned teacher Alphonse-Marie Parent. After the Parent Commission made its recommendations, a new school system was created in 1964 — as was the Department of Education to run it.

Gérin-Lajoie put forward several principles: free public education, the obligation to attend school until age 16 for all Quebec youth, the establishment of the secondary education network, exchanges of higher level students with France and improved teacher training.

After the Liberals lost to the Union Nationale in the 1966 elections, Gérin-Lajoie continued to advance Quebec's education system as a member of the opposition. He created CEGEPs in 1967 and established the Université du Québec in 1968.

Gérin-Lajoie is also the creator of a policy named after him: the "Gérin-Lajoie doctrine," which has been carefully observed by all Quebec governments since 1970. According to the doctrine, Quebec should play an independent role on the international stage in areas within its exclusive jurisdiction, such as education and culture, without Ottawa's oversight.

An international impact

Born in Montreal on Feb. 23, 1920, this lawyer was one of the first Quebecers to win a Rhodes Scholarship in 1938, when he was only 18.

He led the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) from 1969 to 1977, breathing new life into Canada's international assistance for poorer countries.

Gérin-Lajoie notably expanded assistance to French-speaking countries, at a time when several former French colonies in Africa were gaining independence. He also expanded CIDA's role in emergency situations and enhanced the role of non-governmental organizations in foreign cooperation.

He fulfilled several international legal mandates between 1977 and 1981 in his function as a legal expert. Then, in 1981, he was appointed president and CEO of the Old Port of Montreal Corporation. He took the opportunity to improve the obsolete port facilities, giving Montrealers a new perspective on the St. Lawrence River.

Starting in 1986, he chaired the Paul Gérin-Lajoie Foundation, dedicated to providing training and education for young Africans. The foundation advocates for Canadians to sponsor young African students. It also created the popular Dictée Paul-Gérin-Lajoie, a project that aims to improve French-speaking students' knowledge of the French language across the world. In 2012, during the 21st edition, the Dictée had five million participants.

Gérin-Lajoie's contributions were recognized through numerous decorations and awards, including being made a member of the National Order of Quebec, a Companion of the Order of Canada and receiving a dozen honorary doctorates from universities worldwide.

[Grey Fox]

RIP.

[Valmy]

RIP to a glorious revolutionary godless heathen.

As an aside as a former student of the French language anytime anybody says 'dictée' I involuntarily twitch in horror.

[crazy canuck]

anytime anybody says 'dictée' I involuntarily twitch in horror.

[Grey Fox]

We all do.

[crazy canuck]

So, it turns out that the decision the Feds made to purchase the KM pipeline will likely add 6.5 billion in unplanned spending the 2018-19 fiscal year and add 36 per cent to the projected $18.1-billion deficit.

[Barrister]

So, it turns out that the decision the Feds made to purchase the KM pipeline will likely add 6.5 billion in unplanned spending the 2018-19 fiscal year and add 36 per cent to the projected $18.1-billion deficit.

Is that surprising?

The good news it is spending to purchase an asset, so hopefully they can sell that asset later on.  It's not like program spending that just gets spent.

[crazy canuck]

So, it turns out that the decision the Feds made to purchase the KM pipeline will likely add 6.5 billion in unplanned spending the 2018-19 fiscal year and add 36 per cent to the projected $18.1-billion deficit.

Is that surprising?

The good news it is spending to purchase an asset, so hopefully they can sell that asset later on.  It's not like program spending that just gets spent.

It is not really the purchase of an asset.  It is the purchase of the right to develop an asset which, in the hands of the government, is infinitely more difficult to develop than it would be in the hands of a private actor.  And really, you are now defending state ownership of the means of production, comrade BB?

I would much prefer program spending - at least we would get some benefit.

[Barrister]

So, it turns out that the decision the Feds made to purchase the KM pipeline will likely add 6.5 billion in unplanned spending the 2018-19 fiscal year and add 36 per cent to the projected $18.1-billion deficit.

Is that surprising?

The good news it is spending to purchase an asset, so hopefully they can sell that asset later on.  It's not like program spending that just gets spent.

It is not really the purchase of an asset.  It is the purchase of the right to develop an asset which, in the hands of the government, is infinitely more difficult to develop than it would be in the hands of a private actor.  And really, you are now defending state ownership of the means of production, comrade BB?

I would much prefer program spending - at least we would get some benefit.

It's an existing pipeline, which currently generates revenue.

I'm defending state ownership of a pipeline because it's the last resort after several years of Liberal bungling on the pipelines file.

[crazy canuck]

So, it turns out that the decision the Feds made to purchase the KM pipeline will likely add 6.5 billion in unplanned spending the 2018-19 fiscal year and add 36 per cent to the projected $18.1-billion deficit.

Is that surprising?

The good news it is spending to purchase an asset, so hopefully they can sell that asset later on.  It's not like program spending that just gets spent.

It is not really the purchase of an asset.  It is the purchase of the right to develop an asset which, in the hands of the government, is infinitely more difficult to develop than it would be in the hands of a private actor.  And really, you are now defending state ownership of the means of production, comrade BB?

I would much prefer program spending - at least we would get some benefit.

It's an existing pipeline, which currently generates revenue.

Yes it is but you conveniently omit two important facts.

First, the whole reason for the purchase was to facilitate the expansion of the pipeline.  The purchase price was for not just for the existing pipeline but also all the lands, infrastructure and rights related to the expansion of the pipeline - and KM did not give that away for free; and

Second, the existing pipeline requires an upgrade/replacement.  KM tried to tie an expansion to that project.  So we get saddled with all the expansion and replacement costs.

And for What?  Appeasing Alberta?

[Barrister]

Yes it is but you conveniently omit two important facts.

First, the whole reason for the purchase was to facilitate the expansion of the pipeline.  The purchase price was for not just for the existing pipeline but also all the lands, infrastructure and rights related to the expansion of the pipeline - and KM did not give that away for free; and

Second, the existing pipeline requires an upgrade/replacement.  KM tried to tie an expansion to that project.  So we get saddled with all the expansion and replacement costs.

And for What?  Appeasing Alberta?

I didn't omit anything - you were the one who commented that it was a "right to develop".  It is - but it's also the asset itself.

And for what?  Do you not remember the reason WHY pipelines are vital?  Alberta currently sells its oil at a substantial discount because the only people we can sell it to are the Americans, and they currently have a glut of the stuff.  But once we can get oil to "tidewater" we can sell on the world market.  WHich means billions and billions of dollars for Alberta's economy, and for the country at large.

[crazy canuck]

Yes it is but you conveniently omit two important facts.

First, the whole reason for the purchase was to facilitate the expansion of the pipeline.  The purchase price was for not just for the existing pipeline but also all the lands, infrastructure and rights related to the expansion of the pipeline - and KM did not give that away for free; and

Second, the existing pipeline requires an upgrade/replacement.  KM tried to tie an expansion to that project.  So we get saddled with all the expansion and replacement costs.

And for What?  Appeasing Alberta?

I didn't omit anything - you were the one who commented that it was a "right to develop".  It is - but it's also the asset itself.

Did you even read what I wrote?

Do you not remember the reason WHY pipelines are vital?  Alberta currently sells its oil at a substantial discount because the only people we can sell it to are the Americans, and they currently have a glut of the stuff.  But once we can get oil to "tidewater" we can sell on the world market.  WHich means billions and billions of dollars for Alberta's economy, and for the country at large.

The expansion is not "vital".  Alberta has existed without it for a long time.  If this project really is worth Billions and Billions, why didn't the private sector just build it many years ago?  Why did KM back out so easily and turn its back on all this revenue?  Answer - it isn't all that great a deal.