Doug, any expropriation legislation can include a bar against civil redress.
[/quote]
Not against civil redress that's necessitated by an international treaty. Treaties override provincial legislation. Indeed, they override everything except the constitution. Nationalization isn't unlawful - just potentially very costly if it's of something someone in the NAFTA-zone has an ownership stake in.
Not against civil redress that's necessitated by an international treaty. Treaties override provincial legislation. Indeed, they override everything except the constitution.
What exactly are you talking about? The federal government has no say over property rights - it's a provincial matter. How can a federal treaty override a province's constitutional powers or bind it [b]without its consent[/b]?
You should explain to the U.S. about NAFTA overriding all its legislation...
Oh Tommy and the CCF would have done it Unionist's way, we can be sure. Still no mention of how to finance these provincial level renationalisations. Tiny Manitoba's got all kinds of money to compete with marauding capital. They jus' do' want to is all. Concern and doubt about the NDP seems to be rising the nearer the banks and CEO's are to giving the Liberal Party the nod for an election.
And when the Liberals receive that nod and high sign from banksters and CEO's is anyone's guess.
What exactly are you talking about? The federal government has no say over property rights - it's a provincial matter.
Our Liberals could have given us some guarantees that childcare would not be subject to NAFTA laws had they created a national daycare program and established regulations governing it as a public good, but they failed to do anything after twelve long years of sipping the kool aid. It's still up in the air, no thanks to neoliberalized Liberals in Ottawa.
You should explain to the U.S. about NAFTA overriding all its legislation...
No need to worry there. No Canadian or foreign nationals for that matter own large enough share interest in any sector of the US economy that would cause US hawks concern about trade related private property laws. In fact, no developed country has allowed as much foreign ownership and control of its economy as Canada's stoogeocracy has while intoxicated by influence of neoliberal flavoured kool aid.
Not against civil redress that's necessitated by an international treaty. Treaties override provincial legislation. Indeed, they override everything except the constitution.
What exactly are you talking about? The federal government has no say over property rights - it's a provincial matter. How can a federal treaty override a province's constitutional powers or bind it [b]without its consent[/b]?
You should explain to the U.S. about NAFTA overriding all its legislation...
The effect of NAFTA is to force equal treatment of US- and Canadian-owned firms. If existing law permits expropriation of Canadian-owned assets according to a certain formula for compensation, then the same formula has to be applied to the expropriation of US-owned assets.
And how many key sectors of the US economy are majority foreign owned and controlled, besides none? Here in Canada, it's somewhere over 35 according to Mel Hurtig. And Canada's banks, using Canadians' savings, have been financing some large percentage of the foreign takeover money.
What I'd like to know is how much ownership constitutes a "foreign presence" as it relates to NAFTA?
The effect of NAFTA is to force equal treatment of US- and Canadian-owned firms. If existing law permits expropriation of Canadian-owned assets according to a certain formula for compensation, then the same formula has to be applied to the expropriation of US-owned assets.
Stephen, how does NAFTA legally bind a provincial government on matters within its constitutional jurisdiction? What law are we talking about, enacted by whom? I'm asking this again because I hear statements here which I'm seeking explanations for. Did Manitoba sign on to NAFTA? Is the Manitoba legislature disempowered from nationalizing a Manitoba property? How can that be, when parliament is supreme (except as bound by the Constitution)?
I don't know how. But when I look through the text of Chapter 11, it's pretty explicit about making sure that the provisions apply to "states or provinces". I don't know if that's because the provinces gave their permisssion, or if the feds were able to use their powers to make international treaties to make it happen regardless of what the provinces thought.
And dont forget to ask how tiny Manitoba might go about financing this excellent adventure in "CCF style" expropriation.
Well reading this thread Fidel you are in fact saying that there is no point in electing any progressive government because their hands are tied by NAFTA etc. So why should anyone care about the NDP then? Because our politicians accept your view of the world we are losing voters ever election because they are listening to the message and agree that there is no point to electoral politics.
So why did dozens of Liberal government lawyers and Chretien even bother to sign NAFTA if it's just a loosely worded set of guidelines only that you two babblers suggest that it is? What was all that stink about Chretien making his party out to be the most anti-FTA and anti-GST party of any leading up to the 1993 election? Why did voter turnout in Canada drop off after Canadians realized the Liberals lied about opposing Mulroney and that wing of the party's very neoliberal agenda? Were the 1990's just a figment of all our imaginations?
Since you clearly belief that an elected social democratic government can't accomplish anything meaningful why are you such a partisan?Do social democrats in Sweden, Norway or Denmark have to deal with top-down federal-provincial politics and ridiculous trade deals between their countries and the USSA? I dont think so. There is something called federal and national level politics with real consequences for economic and social conditions in Canada, and the rotten eggs roll downhill from Ottawa.
I agree that the NDP will not make a difference because the neo-cons you hate so much have put us all in a bind and the NDP will not fight to get out of it. The federal party is no longer talking about getting rid of NAFTA but instead complaining about the Buy US policy. If they truly wanted to oppose the neo-cons they would be shouting good on those American communities who insist their people come before corporations. To use a good old boy American saying; "No guts no glory." So you are right there is no point in opposing the neo-con agenda through our "democratic" institutions. That is why the people who are being decimated by the neo-con agenda don't vote. The NDP is irrelevant so if anyone still wants to work in federal politics they might as well join the liberals to ensure they get a more progressive leader than Iggy.
___________________________________________
Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists
Too bad they used what is essentially a P3 to build the wind farms - instead of being owned and operated by Hydro it is owned by a private company and Hydro is obligated to buy the power from them. I talked to a guy from Hydro about it, and he admitted that there is no technical reason for this arrangement, it is solely a political decision.
I didn't know that, Genstrike. Not sure why they would have entered into an arrangement like that, but that might explain why they haven't expanded the wind model as much as the Conservatives would like them to.
The NDP is irrelevant so if anyone still wants to work in federal politics they might as well join the liberals to ensure they get a more progressive leader than Iggy.
The Liberals are nowhere. Theyre waiting for banksters and CEO's to instruct them as to when to go forward with the stooge-off between the Liberals and Harpers.
The NDP is talking renegotiation of NAFTA in the interests of Canadians and the economy. Harper himself puffed up his chicken chest a number of weeks ago and suggested that if things came down to a trade war, Canada's in the driver's seat with all the fossil fuels and total energy being siphoned off to the states. Even Iggy mentioned something similar wrt north-south hydroelectric power distribution setup. Now imagine a few shrewd NDPers in Ottawa and dealing in the interests of Canadians. The NDP is the hardest-working party in Ottawa by far, and I think they deserve a shot at the big show. They can't do any worse than the damage done already.
They can't do any worse than the damage done already.
I agree but to me that only says "so what." Not standing for any change but just saying "we are not be as bad as the other parties" is exactly the strategy that was used in BC in May. It really lit a fire under voters here and thus resulted in the lowest turnout ever. If you are getting the shit kicked out of you by the neo-con agenda why vote for a party that says that we can't really change much but we are nicer people?
___________________________________________
Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists
Canada has had a severe lack of female premiers. In fact we have only had one who has served for any real length of time - Catherine Callbeck of PEI. It would be nice to to get a woman as Premier of MB!!
Its long over do, and your right it would be nice for a change and you never know it could be a change for the better. Although these guys will never admit to it but its women that are running the house not men and the battles well Thatcher never shyed away from that, she was good at ending them before they started.
closing for length
