Federalism is a continuing debate, a bargaining relationship and most times, compromises are worked out to settle disputes. Sometimes, the courts maybe called upon to settle jurisdictional disputes, especially when there is over-lapping jurisdiction. This was the case over the federal law, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, passed in 2004. This law gave Canada powers over " assisted human reproduction".It banned such procedures as sex selection and payments for sperm and egg donors. It also allowed for the creation of the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada. In 2006 the agency was set up by the federal government to police the fertility industry, including compliance and issuing and reviewing of facility licences and practices. In 2007, after federal regulation under the act came into effect banning the use of eggs, sperm and embryos without the consent of of the owner, Quebec passed its own law to regulate clinical and research activities related to assisted reproduction. 
      These two laws overlapped and created a conflict over jurisdiction. Quebec challenged the federal law and after the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled,2008. that the federal act was invalid, Ottawa appealed to the Supreme Court in 2009. The Federal Government argued that it had jurisdiction under the Criminal law section 91-27, of the constitution. Quebec countered that it has jurisdiction under sec. 92-6, hospitals, sec.92-13,"property and civil rights" and under sec.92-16, " matters of a purely local nature in the Province". 
     Dec. 22, 2010, after 20 months, the Supreme court came back with a typical Canadian compromise. They ruled that while Quebec has jurisdiction over, "hospitals, property and civil rights and matters of a purely local nature",  the federal law is valid because Ottawa has jiuisdiction over criminal law and does have the power to prohibit such activities as the cloning of human beings. However, the court said that "assisted human reproduction is an area of overlapping jurisdiction and allows provincial schemes to govern exclusively where provincial laws are equivalent to the federal scheme".
     What does this mean ? The provinces have the power" to regulate clinical and research activities related to assisted human reproduction" . There will not be a single law for the country, but different laws for different provinces...a hodge-podge of laws,..... what may be allowed in one province will not be in another. Some provinces will have certain rights and protection which others will not have and vicre-versa, whether it be access, funding, research, oversight " the use and care of human embryos, eggs and sperm". No national standards.
     This ruling has resulted in a gain of power for the provinces. It was a narrow interpretation of federal powers, which goes against the grain. Previously, the court had tended to interpret broadly, and this had favoured the federal government, especially in the area of "residual power". Perhaps the feds. should have argued that it is a new area not covered by the provincial grant of power, sec. 92 , and thus that it falls under 91-29 " such classes of subjects as are expressly excepted in the enumeration of the classes of subject by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces."
     It will be interesting to see whether this sets a precedent.      
 

      It was quite a year....natural disasters abound and human venality( politicians) was everywhere, from the Tea Party to Berlusconi to Talk Radio and Fox to Cry- Baby Boehner and greedy Palin to the rapacious Karzai clan to megalomaniac Mugabe , the rabid drug cartels of Mexico, to the unctuous Netanyahu and Zardari and a whole lot more.
     Here's hoping that 2011 will bring peace, happiness and a more humane world.( One can hope).
                  HAVE A MOST ENJOYABLE REST OF THE YEAR AND MAY THE NEW YEAR BE FULL OF GOOD THINGS...HEALTH, HAPPINESS AND SERENITY........ISHWAR PRASHAD      

     Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has condemned the 50 rabbis who have signed an open letter telling Jews not to rent or sell property to non-Jews. "This kind of speech should be banned in a Jewish and democratic state", he said. This is a very mild rebuke. It seems as if some have forgotten their own history of rejection, discrimination and outright and grievous attacks in the many societies that Jews have settled in. In Canada they were subjected to the racist policy of "None is one to many" and in Quebec to the rabid "No Jews or dogs allowed".and of course, let's not forget the Holocaust.
     I remember with sadness my own experience of racism when I came to Montreal in 1968. My wife and I were renting a small one room apartment on Pierce street. We were looking for a bigger and better place as we were expecting our young children to join us, in a few months. we saw an ad. for an apartment nearby on de Maisoneuve. We called and made an appointment, but as soon as we got there, we were told that the place was no longer available. We explained that we had called a few minutes before and were told to come over and we asked how can the place not be available. The door was closed in our face. There was a friend with us and he told us that some people do not rent to non-whites. We could not believe this. We had never encountered any form of discrimination before and were truly shocked. Call us naive or whatever ( I was a student at Sir George Williams U. and my wife was working at the library at McGill) and there was a school nearby, which my children could attend. It was an ideal place for us.)
     We went back to our apartment and told another friend what had happened. His name is Pat Doyle (Irish, of course). He became angry and picked the phone and called to rent the same apartment. He was told to come over. He went and" lo and behold", the apartment was once again available. We had followed him there and waited outside. He called us in and you could see the confusion and anger in the eyes of the same woman who had earlier told us that the apartment was not available. We went away and Pat told us to call the rental board. We chose not to, mainly because we were on student's visa and did not want to make waves.( I have always regretted that decision).
     We were able to find an apartment on Crecent street and enjoyed our stay there (that was before Crescent became "the place"
     The rabbis went on in their letter to say that the Torah forbid any Jew from selling "a house or a field in the land of Israel to a foreigner"." He who sells or rents them a flat in an area where Jews live causes harm to his neighbors." The letter adds :" After someone sells or rents just one flat, the value of all the neighboring flats drops....He who sells or rents (to non-Jews) causes his neighbor a big loss and his sin is great" So is it a religious dictate or is it an economic one?
      These rabbis are mostly state-employed, so are they speaking for the state? The government has an obligation to clarify this in a clear and forthright manner. Jewish settlers can build on Palestinian/Arab land, but Palestinians/Arabs cannot even rent from a Jew or that Jew will be "ostracized".  
      A group of Orthodox rabbis have also condemned the letter. but more has to be done.   

     Obama is a compromiser, not a negotiator. American politics require the president to be a good and hard, horse-trader. Obama is soft. He gives in too easily and the Republicans are very aware of this and thus play their game of hardball on every issue. No bi-partisanship, when they can bluff Obama and his spineless team of advisers at every turn. As Machiavelli noted, the advisers are the "brains of the leader" and if they panic and cave in , then there is no need to negotiate, just "huff an puff" and blow the Dems. away.
     This is the Obama shuffle....take a position, then move sideways, then take two steps backward and finally one step forward, and then do it again.
      Obama suffers from a form of Stockholm syndrome....the carping and ranting by the unctuous Republicans and their "amen lobby" of Palin, Fox and Talk Radio, is follwed by Obama wringing his hands a' la Hamlet (to do or not to do") and then accepting their position. On the issue of the Bush tax cuts, he is showing every sign of a cave in. This will split his party, especially the base liberal wing. This opens him up for even more Republican "hard-ball".
      He has to find some backbone and act as the President, not some wounded bird. Forget the bi-partisan game...the Reps. are not interested. A solid majority of Americans favor the plan to roll the tax cuts for the wealthy, even as they supported a singhle-payer medical plan. He waffled and gave in then and he is doing the same again. He has lost faith in himself, and he is quickly losing the support of his most loyal troops.