Section 2

Liveblogging Elex

So far we're ok... Atlantic Canada favours the Libs.

Flying Peanuts

Yesterday's Globe Travel section ran a front-page story packed with ideas on how to eat healthier when flying now that the airlines have reduced their meal plans to Kit Kats and bags of Rold Gold pretzels. It's a good piece with tasty sounding suggestions for snacks like portabello and smoked meat sandwiches.

But here's my beef: planes represent one of the few places from which you cannot escape without significant help or planning from pilots and crew. Once you're on a commercial plane, you're on a plane. When you suffer from life threatening anaphylactic allergies, as I do, you are very conscious of the fact that traveling by plane presents dangerous possibilities.

Thankfully, most major airlines have recognized the potential trouble in serving bags of peanuts, and have substituted almonds and pretzels in their place. But with the changing trend of less food being served and passengers opting to fly with their own snacks, the chance of on-board peanuts/peanut butter sandwiches re-emerges with a vengeance.

So now what? Airlines can't be expected to check everyone's snackpacks... or can they?

I'm mulling this one over, but any thoughts are welcome.

Hogg on Martin's Surprise 'Notwithstanding' Pledge

Peter Hogg, arguably the country's most noted constitutional scholar, disagrees with the Prime Minister's idea articulated last night during the debate to abolish Ottawa's ability to invoke s. 33 of the Charter.

In a NewsWorld interview this afternoon, Professor Hogg asserted that, "the courts don't have the monopoly on wisdom," and that there should therefore be an override function at Parliament's disposal.

The most obvious counter arguments, which factored into the PM's rationale, are that in a constitutional democracy, the role of the courts cannot be disempowered by allowing Parliament to strike down its decisions. Secondly, there is the political aspect of the so-called 'Notwithstanding Clause' that continues to plague its own credibility; that its survival is a continued reminder of Trudeau's last minute politicking needed to get the Charter (barely) approved by the majority of the provinces in the first place.

Personally, I could support a push to repeal s. 33, though I don't know that 50% of the population AND 7 provinces (the requirements for a constitutional amendment) would follow through on the effort. Furthermore, it would have to be made very clear to voters that the provinces would still have the authority to invoke the clause - that only Ottawa would be prohibited from overriding the court.

Don't know that this is the sort of idea that voters will rally around for the upcoming federal election. Definitely don't think it's the sort of homerun Martin was looking to bat.

More Campaign Cynicism

Jim Travers of the Star, just now on CBC Radio, on the stump speech that he has found most impressive:

"... the age of rhetoric and moving campaign speeches is behind us."

Sad.

Possibly true.