Well, he's starting this the way he started the campaign -- leading with his chin.

Such an uneven sort of leader -- some days, inspired, some days, just awful. No clue what his fate will be. Anywhere from out quicker than Joe Who to around for decades.

How come you don't have a link for the alledged "special deal" he's offering Quebec, which appears to me to be the same thing he's offering other provinces. It looks like issues are being invented where none exists. As for Dalton, etc., they can go suck it.

Everyone in Quebec knew what they were voting for or against. I doubt there's going to be a sudden surge of support for sovereignty because Harper does what he said he was going to do. Who's the PQ going to get? Liberal voters or Conservative ones?

Re: Ben's comments -- always get the contraversial stuff out of the way first.

Sorry, David. The link is the same one as above one further up the story. I will replicate it by HMTL cloning. Let me get my special helmet and gauntlets on first.

always get the contraversial stuff out of the way first.

What's so controversial about Childcare??

This is interesting, David, because if Ontario and Quebec and Manitiba have binding agreements for five years and your opinion of the binding nature is "go suck it", are you saying that the Federal government has the ability to undo contracts? Like Pearson airport's privatization and Chretien? In 2003, Tory Jay Hill wrote about how awful cancellation of contracts by new governments was. Is it OK when it is a "new ethical government" but not when it is...someone you don't like? That is a funny view of contract law.

What contract? You're a lawyer -- what are the provinces giving back to Ottawa in return for the cash; I'm no lawyer, but I know a few and the last I noticed contracts have to be two sided.

And as I said yesterday, if your line of reasoning holds, then I'm looking forward to 99 year agreements enshrining policies I prefer and to hell what the electorate thinks 18, 24 or 60 months time. Because that's what you're saying.

This is a good question. How binding is a contract between the Feds and Provinces. Don's good research definitely shows that there is an "agreement to agree" in the Saskatchewan document after March 2006. But what about the three that claim there is a full agreement for five years. What we need to do is research on law suits between the two levels of government on the issue of failure to honour funding or revenue agreements.

And just to be clear, there is no problem with a government contractually binding itself for a term longer than the life of that government. A government is just a party to agreement making like any other in this respect.

Right, but I'm claiming this is not a contract in the legal sense of "me hiring you to paint the porch".

It is a good claim. It looks good over there on the desk. But I am not sure it is correct. Provinces sue the Feds all the time. They are distinct entities under our split sovereignty system and it is in fact the provinces and not the Feds who have jurisdiction over the law of contract and the ability to amend it. I actually once was asked this question and researched it much to my interest. <p>But this is the actual claim needing being answered. It is certainly Quebec's perceived ace up the sleeve in its coming firefight with Prime Minister Stevie.

We'll see -- you're creating a very powerful weapon which can and probably will be used in a way not your liking.

Back to an earlier point: If Child Care Canada, a company I just created, agreed to pay you 20,000 year to raise your children, with no further service on your part back to CCC, what would happen if the next owner decided to terminate the deal? As I understand it, there would be no consequence to CCC, because the contract was not two sided.

Employment contracts are contracts. The new owner takes all rights and obligations. If the agreement is a true gift it is not an obligation. If there is "consideration" then there is. Consideration has been found to be in the tiniest of exchanges - a single peppercorn back from the other side of the deal is the classic example. Is the agreement in writing?

If Child Care Canada, a company I just created, agreed to pay you 20,000 year to raise your children, with no further service on your part back to CCC, what would happen if the next owner decided to terminate the deal? As I understand it, there would be no consequence to CCC, because the contract was not two sided.

Nice try: But were you elected into 'Child Care Company'? Was the next owner elected in? Your rationale goes off the rails because you're trying to compare the government with a company. As far as I remember, the government of Canada is still an elected body.

Maybe Harper should have asked the parliament to vote for this deal, the same way he's planning to ask the parliament to vote for the gay marriage bill. That'd be true democracy.

Actually, people are elected to leadership positions in companies all the time. That's what boards are for.

If you revist the earlier arguments, one of my claims is that "contracts" between governments are not the same as contracts between private parties. I.e. I am not confusing government and companies, I was simply making an example based on contract law for the purposes of showing that it's a well established concept that contracts aren't always legal.

CCC doesn't have an employment contract. It's previous owner just happened to like you a decided to hand over it's shareholder's cash to you; the board put an end to that.

Then it is a gift. That is not analogous to a Federal Provincial agreement which is subject to contract law. You cannot wish away the fact that governments are mere entities in the eyes of the courts which enforce the law. There is not anything like "a well established concept that contracts aren't always legal". If it is not binding and enforceable, it is not a contract. It is something else. Federal-Provincial agreements are contracts unless they say they are not - which they often do.

Which is what I'm saying. Sheesh, Al.

You are saying it in a backwards way, right? They can be non-binding (as the Sask one was for years 2-5) but also binding (like year 1). Problem is, Ontario and Quebec have 5 year binding deals and the NuFeds are trying to break a binding deal. It will all depend on how good Martin's lawyers locked it in. One side cannot after the fact unilaterally make a contract less binding than it is.

No, I'm saying that me saying "not all contracts are enforcable" is isomorphic to saying "they're not contracts".

And as I've said many times, remember what you're arguing for -- you can be locked into lots of things that future governments ... and the citizenry in general ... may not like.

(that are of a purely political nature).

Yes but the commercial planning for dealing with any procurement even with governments requires lock-in. Happens all the tiue. The only questions is whether Martin locked in the Feds on this one or whether Harper now gets to do a Pearson/helicopter sort of deal...except with the provinces. Good luck on that one, Stevie!<p>BTW, your affinity for isomorphicality threw me off as I much prefer in language the truth that there are no synonyms.

Actually, people are elected to leadership positions in companies all the time. That's what boards are for.

So, when are you going to run for Office at Microsoft? I'll vote you in!

Someday, I'll rule Microsoft with an iron fist!

OK, let's say it's Mulrooney Helicopter sort of deal, just for argument's sake. $500 million dollar payout on $4000 million contract, right?

What's the damages to Quebec? What expendatures have they made that they can't recover?

Someday, I'll rule Microsoft with an iron fist!

That is after you've finished your 'Democracy 101' course.

I suspect Quebec has entered into long term contracts for provision of the daycare services. People talk about government services but for the most part governments are procurers and funders. These flow through agreements are all binding as well. As are the employment contracts. Now some may have outs like the clever use that "the agreements are contingent on continuted funding" and "the government reserves the right to terminate without cause in its sole discretion in 60 days." But it has to be in there. And why would you have ever agreed to that if you were Quebec sitting across the table from a sweaty eager Paul Martin?

Was that intended to be an insult, Arthur? I'm a big believer in democracy, rule of law, rights, justice (the real kind, not the "social" one) and so forth. And I'm reasonably well educated and somewhat informed about history, current events and other things people should know about.

Oh yeah?

Sez who?

Court case between Canada and Quebec on an interim matter in relation to a statutory obligation between the two governments.

Was that intended to be an insult, Arthur?

No.

I'm a big believer in democracy, rule of law, rights, justice (the real kind, not the "social" one) and so forth.

Me too, David. But with all respect, I don't believe that you believe that companies are established democracies. So: your initial comparison (ownership change in Child Care Company vs. Government) just doesn't work because the Government gets a mandate from its citizens. A company does not get its mandate from its employees.

OK, just wanted to clear that up. But that wasn't my <a href="#reply49578">primary</a> argument, it was my <a href="#reply49591">secondary</a> one. Never mind, a quibble.

Aside: Internally, companies are not capitalist or run as democracies, they're totalitarianist. And when they get big enough, they become Soviet-style socialist, which is why most corportations tend not to last for more than a couple of decades.

That's a very interesting aside you've made about big companies, David. I totally agree. Big companies really do tend to act a lot like Stalinist dictatorships; which is why you get some of the same stuff happening in former soviet republics (i.e. here in Hungary) as in Canada or the US when it comes to customer service. Big companies become bogged down and corrupt and spend too little on customer service, so you end up on hold and when you finally reach someone he or she is an incompetent poorly paid grunt who has been on the job since two minutes ago. Here in Hungary, companies have employed former bureaucrats who are used to the customer being some kind of nuisance and the end result is essentially the same. In either case, the customer is always wrong.

I've worked at some of the biggest companies in the world, so I should know! What most people don't realize that inside these companies, if you're "management material", your focus will be 98% "internal" -- how does this affect me/my department/my organization relative to others within the corp.

I believe this to be a generalized rule of all large organization, which I was I don't particuarly look to the government for solutions to problems unless I'm willing to put up with a lot of inefficiencies.

Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. So there have to be sufficient checks on power and on inefficiencies. In my view, every few years the bureaucracy needs to be culled (in government and in the private sector) and monopolies need to be broken down. Where we part company is that when it comes to government I think that's just a means to an end (i.e., to greater efficiency) whereas most conservatives these days see the endless cull as an end in itself. So I don't think government services are inherently inefficient. In many cases, they are more efficient. It's really a question of balance, not ideology. There is virtue in moderation is what I'm saying. Each case needs to be looked at individually.

Of course the difference lies in the fact that the Queen in Parliament is sovereign and can repudiate an agreement in a manner which is not available to the ordinary contracting party: a law repudiating the agreement can be passed and the federal government can include provisions limiting the government's liability.

Now, it would be interesting to see the Tories try to pass such legislation in the current House....

This is an interesting point as the Queen in the right of the provinces administers the civil law of contract not the Queen in the right of Canada. If an exit clause is not in the Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba agreements - how does Ottawa impose one after the fact even legislatively? What is the technical tool they would use?