Right, both pieces are a perfectly reasonable look at the private member's bill — which is all we really have to go off of. But as Paul points out, a lot of this falls to existing fed-prov agreements: An opposition member can't re-open those deals, a prime minister obviously can.
I don't think anyone is arguing it's *unworkable,* I think …
Right, both pieces are a perfectly reasonable look at the private member's bill — which is all we really have to go off of. But as Paul points out, a lot of this falls to existing fed-prov agreements: An opposition member can't re-open those deals, a prime minister obviously can.
I don't think anyone is arguing it's *unworkable,* I think the point is that it's somewhere between mis-directed and insufficient (which I argue above) and vague in its mechanics. I think those are all fair criticisms! But the crux of it, that Ottawa needs to crack some skulls in order to get some foot-dragging jurisdictions moving (including the entire province of Ontario) I maintain is good.
Right, both pieces are a perfectly reasonable look at the private member's bill — which is all we really have to go off of. But as Paul points out, a lot of this falls to existing fed-prov agreements: An opposition member can't re-open those deals, a prime minister obviously can.
I don't think anyone is arguing it's *unworkable,* I think the point is that it's somewhere between mis-directed and insufficient (which I argue above) and vague in its mechanics. I think those are all fair criticisms! But the crux of it, that Ottawa needs to crack some skulls in order to get some foot-dragging jurisdictions moving (including the entire province of Ontario) I maintain is good.