Progressive Tory Posted January 1, 2009 Report Posted January 1, 2009 Unless you've been living under a rock you've all heard the accusations of Harper's hidden agenda. This has given rise to speculation that runs from distinct possibility to the absolutely absurd. However, I would like to have an open discussion on the not so hidden agenda, a new federalism, to see what other people think. I'm of two minds. My knee-jerk reaction is that no one is going to split up my country, but then the conservative part of my nature says, he may have a point here. But before we can proceed, I'll start with the absurd, so that it doesn't have to enter into the discussion: "We've all heard of Stephen Harper's "Hidden Agenda." Harper and the Conservatives insist that there isn't one and the other parties keep warning us about it." http://www.publicbroadcasting.ca/2008/09/h...snt-hidden.html "Perhaps Harper's opponents were correct - perhaps the Conservative leader does harbour a hidden agenda. But rather than being an extreme right-wing conservative, Harper has cleverly hidden that he is a liberal, or, at best, a pragmatist who is willing to buck any principle for short-term political advantage." http://theinterim.ca/2008/nov/03harpers.html Harper does not hide his Social Conservative views, but I don't think he's as right-wing as many believe. He often clashes with the old Reform/Alliance members, such as we've recently seen on the abortion issue. Where we become closer is on the Belgium model of federalism, which is no longer working in Belgium: "Conservative MPs are defending an idea put forward by Stephen Harper to model the Canadian federation after Belgium..." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/10/20/harper041020.html "He also endorsed parts of Action democratique du Quebec leader Mario Dumont's plan for Quebec. Dumont wants to change the name of the province to "the autonomous state of Quebec....If that's what the government of Quebec wanted to do, it frankly wouldn't give me a big problem.” http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor..._93612031/?hub= Canada "The first section makes the argument that transposing Belgian-style federal structures to Canada, as proposed by Stephen Harper..." http://www.queensu.ca/iigr/working/archive...ic/papers/7.pdf "Harper held up Belgium as the model he personally would be emulating for renewed federalism in Canada if he took power." http://www.vigile.net/Beware-Belgium-s-example Belgium government collapse... http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/...nment-collapsed This agenda isn't hidden either, just not sound. But now on the issues I would like to discuss. A new federalism by creating autonomous regions out of the provinces. http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/418176 This would mean a much smaller federal government, that would only look after foreign affairs and national defense, while the newly formed nations (formerly provinces) would control their own affairs. Much of this makes sense. Many services overlap and create bureaucratic nightmares. The individual nations under the Federation of Canada would control the revenues from their natural resources and industries; collect their own taxes with a much smaller portion going to the federal gov't., and provide their own services based on need and viability. Justice systems would also best refect the will of the people and not divide Canadians on issues like young offenders or capital punishment. I like the idea of smaller government (which is why I was amazed that Harper is adding 30 more seats to the House of Commons. There are already too many) and support an elected senate provided that it allows for proportional representation from all provinces/nations and all political parties (though the voters would decide that). I also agree to set terms of at least eight years but no more than twelve, to allow for fresh ideas. However, while it looks good on paper, is it do-able? You would need an awful strong leader to hold it together. Alberta, Ontario and Quebec could function quite well on their own, but what about PEI or Newfoundland? Also, what would prevent the Nations of say Ontario or Alberta from leaving the federation, if it wasn't to their liking, and joining with the US? More on Harper's views can be found here: “Earlier, speaking to a meeting of the National Citizens Coalition on May 24, 1994, Harper said: "Whether Canada ends up with one national government, or two governments or 10 governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangements of any future country may be. "... an alliance with the Bloc Québécois "would not be out of place. The Bloc are nationalist for much the same reason Albertans are populists – they care about their local identity ... and they see the federal government as a threat to their way of life." http://rightofcenterice.blogspot.com/2008/...-butterfly.html At the end of the day, I am a proud Canadian and probably prefer a federalism that includes all provinces and territories, but I owe it to myself to at least consider the alternative. Any thoughts? Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Wild Bill Posted January 1, 2009 Report Posted January 1, 2009 Unless you've been living under a rock you've all heard the accusations of Harper's hidden agenda. This has given rise to speculation that runs from distinct possibility to the absolutely absurd. However, I would like to have an open discussion on the not so hidden agenda, a new federalism, to see what other people think. I'm of two minds. My knee-jerk reaction is that no one is going to split up my country, but then the conservative part of my nature says, he may have a point here.At the end of the day, I am a proud Canadian and probably prefer a federalism that includes all provinces and territories, but I owe it to myself to at least consider the alternative. Any thoughts? Well, I would ask if the Opposition supports breaking up Canada! An attempt at a coalition is an obvious kick in the groin to Western Canada. Mealy-mouthed excuses from coalition supporters that it is no such thing have no effect in Alberta. It's like having someone kick you in the head and then try to BS you into believing that you didn't really mean it and besides, it couldn't really have hurt you! Actions speak louder than words. Who really has such an agenda? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Argus Posted January 1, 2009 Report Posted January 1, 2009 Unless you've been living under a rock you've all heard the accusations of Harper's hidden agenda. This has given rise to speculation that runs from distinct possibility to the absolutely absurd. However, I would like to have an open discussion on the not so hidden agenda, a new federalism, to see what other people think. Harper, like anyone who has devoted their lives to politics, has a lot of ideas, most of them unworkable, a lot of philosophical thoughts about what Canada would be like if we did this, or we did that. The reality is that most such thoughts will never come to fruition, or even be attempted given the scale of effort and time needed. The only reason this can provide ammo for the "hidden agenda" crowd is their paranoia and vitriolic hatred and fear of the man. No doubt Layton and Ignatieff have had ideas as well, though the latter is pretty new to this political thing, but if so no one has cared enough to delve into their pasts to figure out what they are. Though in the case of most Liberals I can understand why; the only thing any of them ever talk about is getting back into power so they can get their hands on the cash again. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Progressive Tory Posted January 1, 2009 Author Report Posted January 1, 2009 Well, I would ask if the Opposition supports breaking up Canada! An attempt at a coalition is an obvious kick in the groin to Western Canada. Mealy-mouthed excuses from coalition supporters that it is no such thing have no effect in Alberta. It's like having someone kick you in the head and then try to BS you into believing that you didn't really mean it and besides, it couldn't really have hurt you!Actions speak louder than words. Who really has such an agenda? Again, and I hate to have to say it again, The Coalition is just as legal in 2008 as it was in 2004 when Harper himself tried to form a Coalition with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton. http://nickcoulter.posterous.com/harper-le...o-clarkson-2004 But that is NOT THE POINT. I wanted to discuss the future of federalism in Canada. I believe you're from Alberta. How do you feel about Alberta becoming a Nation within the Federation of Canada? Running your own affairs and creating your own laws, while the Federal Government, with the help of elected representation from your province, merely handles foreign policy and Defense. We can all agree that the boogey man hidden agenda is off the table. This has long been a goal of Stephen Harper's, so unless you're calling him a liar, let's stick to the topic. Do you agree with him or not? I have stated that I agree on some of the initiative, but still hold onto my old fashioned values of one Canada. That's me. What about you? Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 1, 2009 Report Posted January 1, 2009 Devolving federal powers to the provinces sounds like a fine idea to me. Quote
Smallc Posted January 1, 2009 Report Posted January 1, 2009 Devolving federal powers to the provinces sounds like a terrible idea to me. Quote
charter.rights Posted January 1, 2009 Report Posted January 1, 2009 Devolving federal powers to the provinces sounds like a fine idea to me. That's been a long-standing objective of western conservatives - to decentralize government. It has been tried and has failed to some degree in that the federal government gets its power back when the provinces start begging for money. We are not the US and so provinces unlike states cannot run on their own independent from the federal government and make up their own rules, nor can they unilaterally change the Constitution in the way they it structured the role of provinces. Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 1, 2009 Report Posted January 1, 2009 Devolving federal powers to the provinces sounds like a terrible idea to me. Why? Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 1, 2009 Report Posted January 1, 2009 That's been a long-standing objective of western conservatives - to decentralize government. It has been tried and has failed to some degree in that the federal government gets its power back when the provinces start begging for money.We are not the US and so provinces unlike states cannot run on their own independent from the federal government and make up their own rules, nor can they unilaterally change the Constitution in the way they it structured the role of provinces. Can you expand on this and provide some factual references? Quote
Smallc Posted January 1, 2009 Report Posted January 1, 2009 Why? Because all it does is serve to weaken the Federation. I know that's something you like the idea of. Its not something that I am at all fond of. Quote
Progressive Tory Posted January 1, 2009 Author Report Posted January 1, 2009 Harper, like anyone who has devoted their lives to politics, has a lot of ideas, most of them unworkable, a lot of philosophical thoughts about what Canada would be like if we did this, or we did that. The reality is that most such thoughts will never come to fruition, or even be attempted given the scale of effort and time needed. The only reason this can provide ammo for the "hidden agenda" crowd is their paranoia and vitriolic hatred and fear of the man.No doubt Layton and Ignatieff have had ideas as well, though the latter is pretty new to this political thing, but if so no one has cared enough to delve into their pasts to figure out what they are. Though in the case of most Liberals I can understand why; the only thing any of them ever talk about is getting back into power so they can get their hands on the cash again. I hoped to stress that I find the whole 'hidden agenda' thing nonsense, but do wonder about the future of Federalism. Harper has definitely ignited 'Separist' talks again in Quebec, by dismissing the Bloc as un-Canadian, so this could very well be in the forefront again. I just wondered if anyone liked the idea, hated the idea, or just weren't sure. Some of the logic is quite sound, but I agree it would not happen overnight. As to getting their hands on the cash. It's unfortunate that the Conservatives were able to get their hands on the 13 Billion dollars in cash left by the Liberals because they magically made it disappear. Poof! Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
eyeball Posted January 1, 2009 Report Posted January 1, 2009 Because all it does is serve to weaken the Federation. I know that's something you like the idea of. Its not something that I am at all fond of. I'd prefer to do away with the provinces and divide them into regional jurisdictions that are based on their bioregional characteristics. Responsibility for administering these would fall to municipal, regional district and 1st nation governments. Instead of equalization the federal government should focus on building the capacity for local management. Our idea of federation should be more about our relationship with the rest of the world. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Progressive Tory Posted January 1, 2009 Author Report Posted January 1, 2009 Devolving federal powers to the provinces sounds like a fine idea to me. It doesn't sound like a bad one. No more equalization payments because each province would handle their own finances. I just don't know if it would work and how the Federation of Canada could hold onto the support of the Nations under their helm. For the most part Quebec is opposed to war so may not agree on foreign policy. Ontario is split. I'm sure that Harper and Flannigan have worked out the details, but I wish they were able to share them. I'm still holding back though because of my Canadian pride, but still....If Alberta is fiscally responsible why should they suffer for Provinces who are not? Why should provinces be so divided on things like handling crime, gun control, etc. They can decide for themselves. Damn. I wish it didn't make such sense. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Smallc Posted January 1, 2009 Report Posted January 1, 2009 I'm still holding back though because of my Canadian pride, but still....If Alberta is fiscally responsible why should they suffer for Provinces who are not? Because they are part of Canada. Its as simple as that. We all look out for each other here and we all help each other. That's the spirit of equalization and that's the spirit of Canada. People revently seem to be thinking in terms that are far too regional. We are all Canadians. Quote
eyeball Posted January 1, 2009 Report Posted January 1, 2009 (edited) Because they are part of Canada. Its as simple as that. We all look out for each other here and we all help each other. That's the spirit of equalization and that's the spirit of Canada. People revently seem to be thinking in terms that are far too regional. We are all Canadians. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is 3000 miles from the Pacific Ocean and they've just about succeeded at mismanaging every fishery that coastal communities here used to depend on into oblivion. If Canadians had allowed us the opportunity to manage the affairs that matter the most to us ourselves, we wouldn't need Canad'a help. Its as simple as that. As I see it, the two biggest obstacles to local management are the federal government that are loath to give up any control in the first place and the provincial governments that intercept any they do. Unless of course we're talking about Ottawa walking away from things that might cost the provinces money like, lighthouses, docks and regional airports. Yep the province neatly sidestepped these little bombs and left it to local property tax payers to fund them. They laughed when we suggested we do something like keep some of the local forest stumpage revenues here to pay for these sorts of things. "How are you going to collect those if you don't get to manage who logs? " The province probably gets a real hoot out of the idea of us ever managing our regions fish resources. That's the real spirit of Canada. Edited January 1, 2009 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Boydfish Posted January 1, 2009 Report Posted January 1, 2009 The spirit of devolving power to the provinces is more consistent with the ideals that founded Canada than any centralizing trends. To suggest that a strong central government is a "Canadian value" might hold traction if you disregarded all history. The Canadian confederation constitutionally arose from the idea of local, responsible government. As the founding nations were Crown Colonies, they all had the problem of a distant and what had become over time, essentially a foriegn government in Westminster. If you examine our shared constitutional history, the entire tidal direction has been to get rid of strong, central governments and replace them with local governments. If you take the arguments of the Ottawa imperialists of today and swap out the words "Canada" for "British Empire" and "Provinces" for "Dominions/Colonies", you end up with the exact same vitrol and arguments. The same is true for those who argue for autonomy and local government. The important point to recognize is that any claims of "Canadian" values, ideals and history clearly lay in the hands of those who argue on the side of local autonomy. The ones who drape themselves in a Maple Leaf and claim that the provinces are traitors are the same ones who would have been arguing against the Dominions being anything other than strictly British run operations. Quote
Wild Bill Posted January 1, 2009 Report Posted January 1, 2009 But that is NOT THE POINT. I wanted to discuss the future of federalism in Canada. I believe you're from Alberta. How do you feel about Alberta becoming a Nation within the Federation of Canada? Running your own affairs and creating your own laws, while the Federal Government, with the help of elected representation from your province, merely handles foreign policy and Defense. It is plainly marked in the lefthand corner of my every post that I'm from Stoney Creek, Ontario. Born in Ontario and except for a brief stint as a baby navy brat in the Maritimes I've always lived here. I relate to Alberta's complaints because I believe that if one is objective they simply make sense! I learned long ago as a salesman that you might be able to limit a market's choices for years but if they ever get a chance at an alternative they will drop you like a hot potato. This is what sparked the phenomenal growth of the Reform Party. This is also what breeds separatist feelings. If you have to force people to stay in your group then you've failed. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Smallc Posted January 1, 2009 Report Posted January 1, 2009 The spirit of devolving power to the provinces is more consistent with the ideals that founded Canada than any centralizing trends. To suggest that a strong central government is a "Canadian value" might hold traction if you disregarded all history. I never suggest a strong central government. I am a strong advocate for the status quo. Provinces already have huge power, and they are each allowed to take all the power that Quebec has if they wish. Further centralization or decentralization isn't needed. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted January 2, 2009 Report Posted January 2, 2009 I never suggest a strong central government. I am a strong advocate for the status quo. Provinces already have huge power, and they are each allowed to take all the power that Quebec has if they wish. Further centralization or decentralization isn't needed. The Conservatives are not advocating de-centralizing - they simply want to respect Provincial juristictions - Healthcare, Education, cities. We are so fortunate to have a country where each province has reasonably consistent funding for these things - and they can try different delivery mechanisms to suit their own geographical and demographic patterns. Other provinces can choose to copy or use some of those ideas. Canada is like a giant test lab for best practices. Cities are another good example. Toronto's Mayor has his hand out to the Federal Government. Cities are the responsibility of the Provinces. Why should the Feds be drawn into supporting another level of government? It's just like any well-run company - understand the roles and responsibilities.....that's why it's important to have clear cut Federal/Provincial responsibilities. That's what Harper is trying to do and in doing so, he is sticking to the intent of our Constitution. Quote Back to Basics
Smallc Posted January 2, 2009 Report Posted January 2, 2009 I completely agree with your post. It was actually one of the best things that I've read in quite some time. I'm simply arguing against further decentralization, not about respecting areas that are already supposed to be decentralized. Quote
gordiecanuk Posted January 2, 2009 Report Posted January 2, 2009 Okay...I can't resist chiming in here. I'll keep it to one issue though, Abortion. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm hearing Mr. Harper correctly he is telling Canadians that "THIS" government will not be re-opening the debate on abortion. Kewl. The reason I put THIS in brackets is that the answer to me seems cryptic. We just elected our 40th government (I think its the 40th and I don't want to check right now) to parliament, so "this" government won't be touching it....got it. But what about the "NEXT" government? If after the next election, what if the 41st goverment on parliament hill is a Conservative Majority led by Stephen Harper? Would "that" government reopen issues like abortion or same sex marriage? Quote You're welcome to visit my blog: Canadian Soapbox
Bryan Posted January 2, 2009 Report Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) But what about the "NEXT" government? If after the next election, what if the 41st goverment on parliament hill is a Conservative Majority led by Stephen Harper? Would "that" government reopen issues like abortion or same sex marriage? If that's what Harper actually means, he needs to do a better job of letting his base know that. Edited January 2, 2009 by Bryan Quote
Progressive Tory Posted January 2, 2009 Author Report Posted January 2, 2009 That's been a long-standing objective of western conservatives - to decentralize government. It has been tried and has failed to some degree in that the federal government gets its power back when the provinces start begging for money.We are not the US and so provinces unlike states cannot run on their own independent from the federal government and make up their own rules, nor can they unilaterally change the Constitution in the way they it structured the role of provinces. Why would you think that? I'm just curious. I think that some of the larger provinces like Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, have enough industry and natural resources to survive, especially if they are allowed to keep more of their tax revenue. I'm not really saying it's a good idea, but it is an idea, and one that is being considered. When I first heard of it I was very agitiated and spoke with a longtime friend. "Did you see what he wants to do now"? With many choice explitives. I expected her to be as upset as I was, but instead she thought it might be a good idea. I thought she'd lost her mind but once I calmed down, we discussed it and I've pondered the situation ever since. It may have it's merits but I'm still not really sold. Just wanted to get others' opinions. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Progressive Tory Posted January 2, 2009 Author Report Posted January 2, 2009 Because all it does is serve to weaken the Federation. I know that's something you like the idea of. Its not something that I am at all fond of. I'm not fond of weakening the Federation either, but is that just my Patriatism or is it founded on logic? The idea is to have the Federal Gov't responsible only for foreign policy and defense. The Brisith Empire was able to convince nations to 'Fight for King and Country", despite the fact that we have a PM, not a king. My biggest fear is that the new nations/provinces might look elsewhere, like the US, and Canada would sink into oblivion. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Progressive Tory Posted January 2, 2009 Author Report Posted January 2, 2009 I'd prefer to do away with the provinces and divide them into regional jurisdictions that are based on their bioregional characteristics. Responsibility for administering these would fall to municipal, regional district and 1st nation governments. Instead of equalization the federal government should focus on building the capacity for local management. Our idea of federation should be more about our relationship with the rest of the world. So I gather you like the idea of this new Federalism. However, your support of only regional governments within the former provinces I question. Shouldn't there be a cental government (other than federal), over these regions? I see chaos without it. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.