# The great, ongoing Canadian current events and politics thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 16, 2011, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059 "2011-05-16T03:05:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 37
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/723 "2011-11-11T01:09:26Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > [Massive pipeline project delayed by US](http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20111110/keystone-xl-route-change-trans-canada-pipeline-111110/20111110/?hub=CalgaryHome) - my vote is for taking all the money that would have been spent on the pipeline from northern Alberta to Texas and building a big ol’ oil refinery in Alberta. Gah! Think of all the Eco freaks who’d show up to protest! But I agree. Why not do the value add in Canada rather than send it south. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/724 "2011-11-11T18:04:02Z")
Eh, the eco-freaks are already here protesting the oil sands and whatever else they want to protest. It seems to me there is something else at play in the United States’ decision to re-evaluate this pipeline - they want our oil, no doubt about it, so what’s going on? Is this a political play? I feel like I’m missing something. And why aren’t we building an oil refinery somewhere on the Alberta/Saskatchewan border? I know they’re expensive - so’s the pipeline. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/725 "2011-11-12T01:27:59Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > Is this a political play? I feel like I’m missing something. The decision has conveniently been pushed back to after the next presidential election. Obama knows what is the right thing, but won’t do it because he knows most of his supporters won’t like it. So, he might as well wait until he is re-elected. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/726 "2011-11-12T01:39:38Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > The decision has conveniently been pushed back to after the next presidential election. Obama knows what is the right thing, but won’t do it because he knows most of his supporters won’t like it. So, he might as well wait until he is re-elected. I hate to say it, but for the first time Obama has proven to me to put his re-election ahead of the country’s best interest. What a disappointment ! ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/727 "2011-11-12T02:50:11Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > The decision has conveniently been pushed back to after the next presidential election. Obama knows what is the right thing, but won’t do it because he knows most of his supporters won’t like it. So, he might as well wait until he is re-elected. Ah, so it is politics. It really would serve them right for us to build a refinery instead. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/728 "2011-11-12T02:56:55Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > Ah, so it is politics. It really would serve them right for us to build a refinery instead. No it wouldn’t. This is a mutually beneficial project. Obama is an ass. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/729 "2011-11-12T03:23:12Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > No it wouldn’t. > > This is a mutually beneficial project. > > Obama is an ass. That’s kind of my point - if they’re going to cost us a million bucks a day by sitting on their hands with this project that was basically approved already, then fuck 'em. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/730 "2011-11-13T13:14:49Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Oh crap, I had civil in my head and did not think about criminal. That’s a bad error on my part. Thanks for pointing it out, for the last thing I want to do is be misleading. You’re welcome. And now let’s talk about the civil side. Any litigant or witness appearing in any court established by the Government of Quebec has the constitutional right to use either English or French, as set out in the _[Constitution Act, 1867](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-7.html#anchorbo-ga:s_127-gb:s_127)_: > [@](#): > > \*\*Use of English and French Languages > > 133.\*\* Either the English or the French Language may be used by any Person in the Debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those Languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those Languages may be used by any Person or in any Pleading or Process in or issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec. > > The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those Languages. Now, you made the point earlier that the right to use a particular language does not entitle you to a judge who understands that language; an interpreter is an option. The Supreme Court established that point in a case called _Société de Acadiens v. Association of Parents_. So technically, yes, a litigant or witness in a Quebec court exercising their constitutional right to use English does not have a right to have a bilingual judge. However, practicality comes into play - systems of simultaneous translation are extremely expensive, and there is no way that every court house in Quebec (or any other province) will have facilities for simultaneous translation for those cases where an individual uses English. Instead, the courts have the institutional capacity to operate in either language, as mentioned in my earlier posts, and when a litigant or witness advises the court that they want to use English, the court will accommodate that by providing a bilingual judge. Not a big deal in the major centres, like Montreal or Quebec; may be a bit more tricky in places like the Gaspé, which tends to have a pretty high rate of unilingualism, but courts as a whole have the institutional capacity needed to ensure litigants and witnesses can exercise their constitutional right. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/731 "2011-11-13T15:44:37Z")
> [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > I’m going with what I heard being reported on the news. Supreme Court justices sometimes having to juggle two different versions of a law text was specifically mentioned. Of course laws are being translated by professional translators, but what I understood was that for some laws the two versions do not exactly say the same thing, so some cases hinge on how the court will harmonize them. Was my understanding incorrect? > > And now that I think about it, some laws in Canada will be written primarily in English, others will be written primarily in French, while others will have both versions take equal precedence. While I do trust professional translators, can we really expect a legal text and its translation to always have the exact same meaning, with the exact same nuances? Those are good points, but the problem is that if that’s the reason why Supreme Court judges should all be bilingual, then it’s an argument that all judges in all courts in all provinces of Canada need to be bilingual. All federal statutes are enacted in both languages, and both language versions are equally authoritative. I could raise an issue about a contradiction between the two versions of a federal Act in any court I appear in, and that judge would be required to deal with that issue. And there’s also the point which **Muffin** made earlier, about the official languages of the Northwest Territories - do all judges of all courts that deal with cases from the NWT have to be able to work in all of those languages, so that they can hear or read all the evidence without the intermediary of an interpreter? That would include the NWT Court of Appeal, which is the Alberta Court of Appeal, sitting as the NWT Court of Appeal; it would also include the Supreme Court, since it can hear appeals from the NWT. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/732 "2011-11-13T17:27:50Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > So technically, yes, a litigant or witness in a Quebec court exercising their constitutional right to use English does not have a right to have a bilingual judge. > > However, practicality comes into play . . . That’s where I come back to the fundamental double standard with Quebec’s position. In the civil sphere (thanks again for correcting my brain fart), Quebec has the abilty to, and in fact does, assign English speaking judges when a party wishes to be heard in English, but despite this institutional ability, Quebec has not put into its statues a requirement that a party shall be heard in English by an English speaking judge if that party requests it – but this is what Quebec wants the SCC to do with respect to French. BTW, in areas where one official language is predominant (be it English in Alberta or French in Quebec) and a case is being brought or defended in the other official language, there usually still will be a need for translation even if the judge is bilingual, for one runs into the problem of witnesses, court staff, and lawyers also needing to be bilingual if translation is to be avoided, not to mention the need to have orders and judgements issued in both languages, and have documents including pleadings, evidence, and authorities translated. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/733 "2011-11-14T05:48:29Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > I hate to say it, but for the first time Obama has proven to me to put his re-election ahead of the country’s best interest. > > What a disappointment ! It’s probably in his country’s interest to have Obama elected for a second term. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/734 "2011-11-14T06:18:43Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > It’s probably in his country’s interest to have Obama elected for a second term. But he’s burning some serious bridges to do so; PM Harper made noises today about how we will have to sell our oil to Asian markets if the US doesn’t want it (hint: the US really, really wants it - we’re their biggest supplier). ---
**Author:** ![sitchensis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sitchensis/32/4892_2.png) [@sitchensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sitchensis)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/735 "2011-11-14T07:08:06Z")
Trans Canada also wants natural gas from Alaska, the issues are bigger than they seem. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/736 "2011-11-14T08:02:14Z")
> [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > So of course, now that it’s encased in the constitution, it cannot be changed. No, there is an amending formula for the Constitution. It is difficult to amend the Constitution though, as we all learned from Meech Lake and Charlottetown. > [@](#): > > But if it weren’t so, it’d seem to me that delegating the responsibility to the provinces might start making sense, if we just couldn’t agree on what our criminal laws should look like. It might, but it might not. I’m a little leery of following the path that our American friends follow–that of a separate criminal code for each state. There are many similarities (murder is a crime in each US state, for example, just as it is in Canada), but there are some significant differences. For example, jurisdictional issues come into play: no criminal wanted in Canada is safe if he or she skips provinces–extradition questions do not exist if a criminal wanted in (for example) Ontario is picked up in Alberta. The accused would be simply transported back to Ontario; which does not happen in the US, where extradition hearings between states must occur first. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/737 "2011-11-14T19:54:12Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > But he’s burning some serious bridges to do so; PM Harper made noises today about how we will have to sell our oil to Asian markets if the US doesn’t want it (hint: the US really, really wants it - we’re their biggest supplier). No bridges have been burned, just scorched a bit. It’s the PM’s job to make noises when stuff like this happens. That’s what politicians do. It would take a lot more to burn bridges in a trading partnership as close as the U.S. and Canada’s. This is the conversation that I imagine took place just before Obama announced his decision: \*OBAMA: Sorry, Steve, but I have to put the pipeline off by a year for political purposes. HARPER: Okay, then, for political purposes, I’ll have to rattle my economic sabre. OBAMA: Understood. \* For TransCanada and the oil companies, the issue at this point isn’t how much they’ve invested in the project, but how much they still have to gain from it, and I can’t see huge multinational corporations walking away, or even suffering too much, just because those gains will be delayed for a year. Otherwise, I’m sure Obama wouldn’t have done it. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/le_ministre_de_l_au-dela/32/12181_2.png) [@Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/738 "2011-11-14T21:31:48Z")
[22 Minutes sketch](http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/22_Minutes/Clips/1287245959/ID=2165734899) on the new $100.00 bill. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/739 "2011-11-14T23:56:28Z")
> [@Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](#): > > [22 Minutes sketch](http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/22_Minutes/Clips/1287245959/ID=2165734899) on the new $100.00 bill. Thanks–that gave me a good laugh! “That is not a sex toy for ghosts–it’s a map of Newfoundland!” ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/740 "2011-11-15T00:10:00Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > Thanks–that gave me a good laugh! > > “That is not a sex toy for ghosts–it’s a map of Newfoundland!” Dildo, Newfoundland! ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/741 "2011-11-15T01:12:48Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > No bridges have been burned, just scorched a bit. It’s the PM’s job to make noises when stuff like this happens. That’s what politicians do. It would take a lot more to burn bridges in a trading partnership as close as the U.S. and Canada’s. > > This is the conversation that I imagine took place just before Obama announced his decision: > > \*OBAMA: Sorry, Steve, but I have to put the pipeline off by a year for political purposes. > > HARPER: Okay, then, for political purposes, I’ll have to rattle my economic sabre. > > OBAMA: Understood. \* > > For TransCanada and the oil companies, the issue at this point isn’t how much they’ve invested in the project, but how much they still have to gain from it, and I can’t see huge multinational corporations walking away, or even suffering too much, just because those gains will be delayed for a year. Otherwise, I’m sure Obama wouldn’t have done it. You’re probably right about the discussion. Last I heard, though, TransCanada Pipeline (TCPL) stands to lose a billion dollars from this delay - even for a big O&G company, that’s a lot of money. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/742 "2011-11-15T08:36:47Z")
Whatever the number is, it’ll be bearable over one year for a company that’s already doing well without the new pipeline (if its [dividend payouts since 2000](http://www.transcanada.com/dividends.html) are any indication). I’m not going to take their side just because they won’t make as much next year. TransCanada is a victim of bad timing here, but I don’t think it would hurt them to find out, like we all do, that life is sometimes unfair, and that they’ll have to suck it up and move on. If we’re all expected to do that, it shouldn’t be too much to ask of a healthy, viable entity like TransCanada. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059.md?page=38)