Harper to Propose Constitutional Amendment

[August1991]

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is poised to play a second national unity card by limiting federal spending powers in exclusive areas of provincial jurisdiction, CTV News has learned.

One option to achieve this goal is a constitutional amendment that would require the support of seven provinces comprising 50 per cent of the population, insiders say.

Talks are underway with key provincial governments, including Quebec Premier Jean Charest.

The plan is to prevent the federal government from launching new national programs without the consent of the provinces and any province could opt out with full compensation.

CTV

This has long been requested in Quebec and follows directly from Harper's statements about provincial rights.

The US constitution states that all government powers not clearly stated as going to the federal government, belong to the states. And any powers not clearly stated as government belong to the people.

Our Constitution does the reverse and gives the federal government power the right to tax or spend in any domain it feels appropriate.

Harper's amendment is good and would limit the federal government's power to intervene in jurisdictions that are not in its competency. The Liberals and NDP will likely oppose this proposal.

[Who's Doing What?]

So.....Harper wants to make our constitution more like the American constitution?

Weren't we warned about him doing this kind of thing?

You know, Americanizng Canada.

[Wilber]

So.....Harper wants to make our constitution more like the American constitution?

Weren't we warned about him doing this kind of thing?

You know, Americanizng Canada.

It's like American so it must be bad. How Canadian.

Makes sense to me. The Feds should concentrate on their own responsibilities like foreign affairs and national security instead of always messing around in Provincial jurisdictions. It is the least accountable level of government we have so I don't see it as a bad thing if it meddles less in our everyday lives.

[jdobbin]

Harper's amendment is good and would limit the federal government's power to intervene in jurisdictions that are not in its competency. The Liberals and NDP will likely oppose this proposal.

Harper wants top open the Constitution and limit to that one area? Fat chance? What about the Senate reform that he desires? What about Aboriginal and Quebec concerns? Do you think that Charest is going to open the discussion on this one narrow area without trying to get Quebec concessions elsewhere?

The Liberals should oppose this. It is a can of worms ala Mulroney.

[jdobbin]

Makes sense to me. The Feds should concentrate on their own responsibilities like foreign affairs and national security instead of always messing around in Provincial jurisdictions. It is the least accountable level of government we have so I don't see it as a bad thing if it meddles less in our everyday lives.

You are never going to get all provinces to agree on this one thing unless it comes with reforms elsewhere. The laundry list will come out and you will be cursing Harper's name if it ends in constitutional wrangling.

[mcqueen625]

So.....Harper wants to make our constitution more like the American constitution?

Weren't we warned about him doing this kind of thing?

You know, Americanizng Canada.

I think it is a very good idea because for one thing it will stop any future Liberal government from coming up with another hair-brained sponsorship program to in effect buy votes.

[jdobbin]

I think it is a very good idea because for one thing it will stop any future Liberal government from coming up with another hair-brained sponsorship program to in effect buy votes.

Instead we get years of constitutional debates that rip the country apart as in the Mulroney years?

[ClearWest]

I think it is a very good idea because for one thing it will stop any future Liberal government from coming up with another hair-brained sponsorship program to in effect buy votes.

Or an NDP scheme to implement a national daycare program. Perhaps this won't stop the programs, but at least it will allow the provinces the chance to opt out of them - with full compensation.

Next they need to give indivduals the chance to opt out of government programs with full compensation.

I support this motion to limit the Federal Government's spending powers.

[hiti]

So if Steve has his way, we will end up with 13 different government all heading in different direction. No standardization of rights to health care, education, and god only knows what other Canadian privileges we will lose just so Steve can change Canada into his own image.

Somebody get that @#$%^&* out of there!!!

[jdobbin]

Or an NDP scheme to implement a national daycare program. Perhaps this won't stop the programs, but at least it will allow the provinces the chance to opt out of them - with full compensation.

Next they need to give indivduals the chance to opt out of government programs with full compensation.

I support this motion to limit the Federal Government's spending powers.

I can't believe the right wing is in support of opening the constitution again to costly and emotionally draining debate.

[ClearWest]

Or an NDP scheme to implement a national daycare program. Perhaps this won't stop the programs, but at least it will allow the provinces the chance to opt out of them - with full compensation.

Next they need to give indivduals the chance to opt out of government programs with full compensation.

I support this motion to limit the Federal Government's spending powers.

I can't believe the right wing is in support of opening the constitution again to costly and emotionally draining debate.

The alternative is that a socialist party forms the government and has the power to implement whatever program they want. This constitutional reform would allow more choice for those provinces that do not agree with the federal government.

[jdobbin]

The alternative is that a socialist party forms the government and has the power to implement whatever program they want. This constitutional reform would allow more choice for those provinces that do not agree with the federal government.

This is the Mulroney years all over again if he opens the constitution. It won't just end with one tiny amendment. It never does. It will be everything and everyone putting in their two cents worth. Harper will tear this country apart.

[Who's Doing What?]

So.....Harper wants to make our constitution more like the American constitution?

Weren't we warned about him doing this kind of thing?

You know, Americanizng Canada.

It's like American so it must be bad. How Canadian.

Makes sense to me. The Feds should concentrate on their own responsibilities like foreign affairs and national security instead of always messing around in Provincial jurisdictions. It is the least accountable level of government we have so I don't see it as a bad thing if it meddles less in our everyday lives.

No where did I say it was bad?

All I said is we were warned he would do it.

Makes me wonder what other warnings we as voters should have paid attention to.

But hey if it makes me more Canadian to not want to be more American, I'm all for it. Thanks for the compliment.

I just can't wait to see what Quebec is going to do with more power.

Mcqueen625:

I think it is a very good idea because for one thing it will stop any future Liberal government from coming up with another hair-brained sponsorship program to in effect buy votes.

Oh you mean like $1200 a year for every child under 6 isn't buying votes?

Or a cut in the GST, that only helps those who have money to spend, ie. the wealthy, isn't buying votes?

I'll give you it isn't as underhanded as the sponsorship deal but come on. You can't accuse one party of buying votes and not acknowledge the fact the other party is blatently, openly, doing the same.

[ClearWest]

Mcqueen625:

I think it is a very good idea because for one thing it will stop any future Liberal government from coming up with another hair-brained sponsorship program to in effect buy votes.

Oh you mean like $1200 a year for every child under 6 isn't buying votes?

Or a cut in the GST, that only helps those who have money to spend, ie. the wealthy, isn't buying votes?

You make an excellent point. If I understand this amendment correctly --- provinces would have been able to opt out of the $1200 childcare program under this constitutional amendment.

[August1991]

So if Steve has his way, we will end up with 13 different government all heading in different direction. No standardization of rights to health care, education, and god only knows what other Canadian privileges we will lose just so Steve can change Canada into his own image.

Somebody get that @#$%^&* out of there!!!

Hiti, it's called a federal system of government. One size does not fit all.

We have ten different ministries of education in Canada and each one sets a different curricula. Imagine that! Canadians grow up learning different things!

If I understand this amendment correctly --- provinces would have been able to opt out of the $1200 childcare program under this constitutional amendment.

Provincial governments can opt out now by the simple expedient of imposing a $1200 tax on any child under the age of six - assuming the provincial government had the political courage to do it.

This amendment would mean that federal government cannot create and fund a programme in provincial jurisdiction (let's say, education) and then tell the provincial government to take or leave it.

[Who's Doing What?]

So what happens to that money?

IF 100,000 children in Ontario were supposed to get the suppliment and Ontario opted out ofthe program would the province still recieve $120,000,000 a year, to use as it sees fit?

[sharkman]

It's hard to see all of the ramifications of this proposed move, but any time you limit government spending, that's a good thing.

[geoffrey]

So what happens to that money?

IF 100,000 children in Ontario were supposed to get the suppliment and Ontario opted out ofthe program would the province still recieve $120,000,000 a year, to use as it sees fit?

I certainly hope not. I'd just opt out of everything, take my money, and run my province as I see fit.

[Wilber]

But hey if it makes me more Canadian to not want to be more American, I'm all for it. Thanks for the compliment.

What I am saying is not doing something that may be better just because it is more American would make you stupid.

[Saturn]

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is poised to play a second national unity card by limiting federal spending powers in exclusive areas of provincial jurisdiction, CTV News has learned.

One option to achieve this goal is a constitutional amendment that would require the support of seven provinces comprising 50 per cent of the population, insiders say.

Talks are underway with key provincial governments, including Quebec Premier Jean Charest.

The plan is to prevent the federal government from launching new national programs without the consent of the provinces and any province could opt out with full compensation.

CTV

This has long been requested in Quebec and follows directly from Harper's statements about provincial rights.

The US constitution states that all government powers not clearly stated as going to the federal government, belong to the states. And any powers not clearly stated as government belong to the people.

Our Constitution does the reverse and gives the federal government power the right to tax or spend in any domain it feels appropriate.

Harper's amendment is good and would limit the federal government's power to intervene in jurisdictions that are not in its competency. The Liberals and NDP will likely oppose this proposal.

The problem is that the same constitution makes the federal government responsible for making sure that Canadians across the country have the same access to services. So on one hand, the feds have to make sure that access to health care, education, etc. are similar across the country, while on the other hand Harper wants the feds to have absolutely no say in how these services are delivered. Will Harper change the constitution so that the feds aren't responsible for anything that they have no say over?

[Saturn]

I think it is a very good idea because for one thing it will stop any future Liberal government from coming up with another hair-brained sponsorship program to in effect buy votes.

Instead we get years of constitutional debates that rip the country apart as in the Mulroney years?

Hey Mulroney and co. are the ones pulling the strings behind the Harper government. So what do you expect? He needs to take attention away from the real issues in Canada and what can do that better than some discussion over the constitution. Worked for Brian, why not for Steve?

[geoffrey]

What are the real issues Saturn?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Canada needs to revamp the constitution. I would support opening the can of worms just to see what crawls out of it! Fixed election dates, recall legislation, elected senate, division of powers and so many other things need to be fixed. If the country does that, perhaps I would even back off of my hopes for an independent Alberta.

[Saturn]

So what happens to that money?

IF 100,000 children in Ontario were supposed to get the suppliment and Ontario opted out ofthe program would the province still recieve $120,000,000 a year, to use as it sees fit?

I certainly hope not. I'd just opt out of everything, take my money, and run my province as I see fit.

If that's how Albertans feel, then I see no problem with Alberta separating from Canada and running its own affairs any way it sees fit.

[Who's Doing What?]

But hey if it makes me more Canadian to not want to be more American, I'm all for it. Thanks for the compliment.

What I am saying is not doing something that may be better just because it is more American would make you stupid.

It may be better? Who says, you? Sorry if If I laugh at that thought. But you don't really know anyways do you? This is just your oppinion of what would be better. Maybe what we have is already better. Then you would be stupid to follow the American lead wouldn't you?

If you love american values and lifestyle so much, I hear they let people move there. Staying somewhere a person isn't happy, when they could go where things are done the way they like them, sounds pretty stupid to me.