Harper to Propose Constitutional Amendment

[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?

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.

Might aswell just divide up the territories now and each province can go it's own way.

[Saturn]

What are the real issues Saturn?

The real issues are that Canada is sliding further down the list of good places to live year after year. Our health-care is getting worse, education is getting worse, the gap between rich and poor is getting wider, 1 in 6 Canadian kids live below the poverty line, our infrastructure is deteriorating, our cities are are becoming less safe, more polluted, and quality of life is going down. Our environment is deteriorating, our population is aging and we are not prepared for massive numbers of seniors. Our governments are becoming less and less democratic, less and less responsive to the needs and the wishes of the people and more and more corrupt and unaccountable. Fewer and fewer voters exercise their right to vote and our voting system is 100 years behind the times. Those are the real issues.

[jdobbin]

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.

Other things would crawl out too. A republic, gender equality in the legislature, a guaranteed seat for Aboriginals in the Supreme Court, abortions rights or restrictions, Quebec signing the constitution, a block of seats for natives in the House of Commons. It would be messy and would likely end up in another referendum somewhere, some place.

I don't think there is any guarantee things could spiral out of control violently.

Is it possible to open up the constitution for just one thing? It's possible but then you get one native guy with a feather rejecting it in a minority provincial government.

Have you considered that this might be a future broken promise of Harper? Just an election winner and...oops, did we say Constitution, we meant constipation.

[geoffrey]

What are the real issues Saturn?

The real issues are that Canada is sliding further down the list of good places to live year after year. Our health-care is getting worse, education is getting worse, the gap between rich and poor is getting wider, 1 in 6 Canadian kids live below the poverty line, our infrastructure is deteriorating, our cities are are becoming less safe, more polluted, and quality of life is going down. Our environment is deteriorating, our population is aging and we are not prepared for massive numbers of seniors. Our governments are becoming less and less democratic, less and less responsive to the needs and the wishes of the people and more and more corrupt and unaccountable. Fewer and fewer voters exercise their right to vote and our voting system is 100 years behind the times. Those are the real issues.

It may sound cruel, cold hearted, whatever. But most Canadians don't give a shit about those ideas. They care about how much they get at the end of the work week. They are concerned, no doubt in their health care wait times and how good of an education their kids get. But that's about as far as their real conscience goes. No one cares about pollution or some imaginary poverty line (no one dies of hunger in Canada).

Any real stats on the gap between the rich and poor getting wider?

Canada's will vote for the party that offers them the best chance at getting themselves ahead. That's why the PC's and Liberals have always done well... they offer opportunity. The NDP will never be successful because of what I just said... no one cares about issues completely irrelevant to their own well being.

Democracy is only successful as long as it's selfish.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There is no current political party that can address those issues, here or anywhere else on the planet. What you are describing is both accurate and scary but true.

[Wilber]

This is a major departure in the way the Federal Government operates and a good one IMO. Instead of the Provincial governments having responsibility for all the social programs while the Feds collect most of the tax money and dictate the terms, they are saying that both should stick to their knitting and butt out of each others business. High time as far as I am concerned. I'm tired of the Feds threatening the withholding of funds when my Provincial government wants to do something that the people of this province agree with. It probably won't mean that we will pay much less in the way of taxes but at least I will be taxed by governments which are more accountable to me, namely my Provincial and Municipal governments.

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

If the Federal government is not providing these services they have no reason to collect the money in the first place. For the most part, when it comes to social programs, the Federal government doesn't run them and isn't responsible for them, it just distributes grants and other largess according to how it sees fit. Because they are not responsible for the success of, or how those programs are run, it is basically just vote buying.

[Saturn]

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!

Makes sense. When we meet up internationally to talk about securities regulations, the European Union shows up with one representative at the table and Canada shows up with 9. Great plan!

What's better than setting up 13 different administrations to deal with health-care when one will do? 13 different education administrations, 13 different of this and that and then we can complain about how much government costs us.

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.

Did I mention that the federal government is RESPONSIBLE for making sure that Canadians across the country have more or less the same access to services? As it is the feds get blamed for everything - including health care waiting lists. How exactly are they going to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities if they have absolutely no say in the areas they are responsible for (which means all services)?

[Wilber]

Did I mention that the federal government is RESPONSIBLE for making sure that Canadians across the country have more or less the same access to services? As it is the feds get blamed for everything - including health care waiting lists. How exactly are they going to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities if they have absolutely no say in the areas they are responsible for (which means all services)?

They are only responsible for making and enforcing the laws pertaining to those services. They are not responsible for making them work on a day to day basis and they are not fiscally responsible, which is more than anything what this is about. Money.

[Saturn]

What are the real issues Saturn?

The real issues are that Canada is sliding further down the list of good places to live year after year. Our health-care is getting worse, education is getting worse, the gap between rich and poor is getting wider, 1 in 6 Canadian kids live below the poverty line, our infrastructure is deteriorating, our cities are are becoming less safe, more polluted, and quality of life is going down. Our environment is deteriorating, our population is aging and we are not prepared for massive numbers of seniors. Our governments are becoming less and less democratic, less and less responsive to the needs and the wishes of the people and more and more corrupt and unaccountable. Fewer and fewer voters exercise their right to vote and our voting system is 100 years behind the times. Those are the real issues.

It may sound cruel, cold hearted, whatever. But most Canadians don't give a shit about those ideas. They care about how much they get at the end of the work week. They are concerned, no doubt in their health care wait times and how good of an education their kids get. But that's about as far as their real conscience goes. No one cares about pollution or some imaginary poverty line (no one dies of hunger in Canada).

Any real stats on the gap between the rich and poor getting wider?

Canada's will vote for the party that offers them the best chance at getting themselves ahead. That's why the PC's and Liberals have always done well... they offer opportunity. The NDP will never be successful because of what I just said... no one cares about issues completely irrelevant to their own well being.

Democracy is only successful as long as it's selfish.

Sadly enough most people are too nearsighted to see the big picture. Many are so blinded and selfish that they won't realize that their selfish choices hurt them in the long run. It's like a run on a bank - everyone runs to pull his money out and the bank goes under as a result and many of those who rushed to get their money out end up with no money at all. It's funny how many people endorse policies out of greed without realizing that these policies actually leave them worse off.

That's what Harper is trying to avoid. He doesn't want a debate that will give Canadians a better understanding of the real issues. Because his policies are harmful to the majority of Canadians and he doesn't want them to realize that. He wants some false debate about whether Quebeckers are a "nation", whether gays should marry and about a constitution he cannot change. All things that are completely irrelevant and meaningless.

[Saturn]

Did I mention that the federal government is RESPONSIBLE for making sure that Canadians across the country have more or less the same access to services? As it is the feds get blamed for everything - including health care waiting lists. How exactly are they going to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities if they have absolutely no say in the areas they are responsible for (which means all services)?

They are only responsible for making and enforcing the laws pertaining to those services. They are not responsible for making them work on a day to day basis and they are not fiscally responsible, which is more than anything what this is about. Money.

Actually, yes they are. The federal government is responsible for making sure that the quality of life of all Canadians is roughly the same across the country. The constitution says so. And then it proceeds to put most of the areas that have to do with quality of life under provincial jurisdiction. Pretty retarded if you ask me but that's how it is.

[geoffrey]

Perhaps this is a way to appease Quebeckers while tricking Albertans into believing they are getting something they want too.

Obviously any opening of the constitution will involve porkbarrelling, likely mostly with Quebec getting the benefits. This is just a clever way of making Harper's base believe it's for their own good.

Sneaky Mr. Harper.

But constitutional debates nearing an acceptable government vote of confidence time with a minority parliment.... it's suicide.

[ClearWest]

Makes sense. When we meet up internationally to talk about securities regulations, the European Union shows up with one representative at the table and Canada shows up with 9. Great plan!

National Security is still a - well - national jurisdiction.

What's better than setting up 13 different administrations to deal with health-care when one will do?

Why have twelve different flavours of ice cream when one will do? Because people want choices. We don't want to all be the same across the board. There should be more than only 13. There should be an unlimited number of health-care administrations - not simply one government-supplied health-care. A Free Market would allow people with different needs to receive the treatment they require.

13 different education administrations, 13 different of this and that and then we can complain about how much government costs us.

Education has been, is being, and can be provided by the private sector - often with greater results than the public system. Government doesn't have to cost us so much. Also, astoundingly, many private schools provide education not only of a greater quality--but at a lesser cost per student than is spent in the public system.

[August1991]

Is it possible to open up the constitution for just one thing? It's possible but then you get one native guy with a feather rejecting it in a minority provincial government.

That's false. The last amendment (IIRC) to the constitution concerned school districts in Montreal. We have and can amend the Constitution for specific items.

Dobbin, you and others seem to think that any Constitutional proposal turns into Meech Lake. Well, Meech was an omnibus attempt at change requiring unanimity. It was a long shot and only Mulroney could have gotten it as close as he did.

This proposal is very different. It requires "only" the federal government, 7 provinces and 50% of the population. The Quebec and Alberta governments are certain to approve. The Ontario government will likely agree to achieve harmony.

This is a very feasible proposal and is very much in the style of Pearson Liberalism.

On a related point, Trudeau federalism was confrontational. It was Trudeau's style. Immediately prior to Trudeau, when English Canada was coming to grips with the Quiet Revolution in Quebec, the style was different.

I'm not suggesting that Harper is like Lester Pearson or Eric Kierans. He's not. But it's been a long time since Canada has had a protestant anglophone prime minister.

What's better than setting up 13 different administrations to deal with health-care when one will do? 13 different education administrations, 13 different of this and that and then we can complain about how much government costs us.

....

Did I mention that the federal government is RESPONSIBLE for making sure that Canadians across the country have more or less the same access to services? As it is the feds get blamed for everything - including health care waiting lists. How exactly are they going to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities if they have absolutely no say in the areas they are responsible for (which means all services)?

Saturn, you apparently have little understanding of Canadian history. I suggest you pick up a good textbook and read about the origins of the BNA Act.

We have a federal system not only because it is cheaper and better to organize government that way, it is the only conceivable way to have Canada function as a single country.

And why should the federal government dictate to a provincial government minimum standards for an area in provincial jurisdiction?

[blueblood]

Makes sense. When we meet up internationally to talk about securities regulations, the European Union shows up with one representative at the table and Canada shows up with 9. Great plan!

National Security is still a - well - national jurisdiction.

What's better than setting up 13 different administrations to deal with health-care when one will do?

Why have twelve different flavours of ice cream when one will do? Because people want choices. We don't want to all be the same across the board. There should be more than only 13. There should be an unlimited number of health-care administrations - not simply one government-supplied health-care. A Free Market would allow people with different needs to receive the treatment they require.

13 different education administrations, 13 different of this and that and then we can complain about how much government costs us.

Education has been, is being, and can be provided by the private sector - often with greater results than the public system. Government doesn't have to cost us so much. Also, astoundingly, many private schools provide education not only of a greater quality--but at a lesser cost per student than is spent in the public system.

Whoah there, a person has to be careful government programs that benefit everyone are good things and i have no problems paying taxes on them. A free market healthcare would screw over a low income earner, private healthcare should have STRICT government controls

[Saturn]

Perhaps this is a way to appease Quebeckers while tricking Albertans into believing they are getting something they want too.

Obviously any opening of the constitution will involve porkbarrelling, likely mostly with Quebec getting the benefits. This is just a clever way of making Harper's base believe it's for their own good.

Sneaky Mr. Harper.

But constitutional debates nearing an acceptable government vote of confidence time with a minority parliment.... it's suicide.

In case you haven't noticed, Quebec has 3 times more seats in Parliament than Alberta does. On top of that, no matter what Harper does, he won't lose more than a seat or two in Alberta. He isn't sneaky, he is smart enough to realize that and use it to his advantage.

[blueblood]

Perhaps this is a way to appease Quebeckers while tricking Albertans into believing they are getting something they want too.

Obviously any opening of the constitution will involve porkbarrelling, likely mostly with Quebec getting the benefits. This is just a clever way of making Harper's base believe it's for their own good.

Sneaky Mr. Harper.

But constitutional debates nearing an acceptable government vote of confidence time with a minority parliment.... it's suicide.

In case you haven't noticed, Quebec has 3 times more seats in Parliament than Alberta does. On top of that, no matter what Harper does, he won't lose more than a seat or two in Alberta. He isn't sneaky, he is smart enough to realize that.

A lot of people in the west don't want Quebec getting special powers and what have you and to be honest why should they, they are different, not better. You are talking about the region which gutted the Progressive Conservative party, like I say it's not wise to piss off a sleeping dragon because if he ever decides to wake up there will be hell to pay.

[Saturn]

Makes sense. When we meet up internationally to talk about securities regulations, the European Union shows up with one representative at the table and Canada shows up with 9. Great plan!

National Security is still a - well - national jurisdiction.

What's better than setting up 13 different administrations to deal with health-care when one will do?

Why have twelve different flavours of ice cream when one will do? Because people want choices. We don't want to all be the same across the board. There should be more than only 13. There should be an unlimited number of health-care administrations - not simply one government-supplied health-care. A Free Market would allow people with different needs to receive the treatment they require.

13 different education administrations, 13 different of this and that and then we can complain about how much government costs us.

Education has been, is being, and can be provided by the private sector - often with greater results than the public system. Government doesn't have to cost us so much. Also, astoundingly, many private schools provide education not only of a greater quality--but at a lesser cost per student than is spent in the public system.

Whoah there, a person has to be careful government programs that benefit everyone are good things and i have no problems paying taxes on them. A free market healthcare would screw over a low income earner, private healthcare should have STRICT government controls

What for? We pay 10% of GDP to get shitty health-care. Why not pay 16% of GDP to get shitty health-care like the Americans do?

I'm not sure that a free market health care will screw only low-income earners. I know someone in the US who had 4 operations to remove a brain tumor(s). The bill was $1.25 million, 80% covered by insurance, $250,000 to be paid by her. She is a surgeon and was able to pay. But how many Canadians have a quarter million dollars sitting in their bank accounts? Most would have to sell their homes and many would be bankrupt and on the street. Private insurance never pays for everything and even the middle-class can get screwed pretty bad.

[Saturn]

Saturn, you apparently have little understanding of Canadian history. I suggest you pick up a good textbook and read about the origins of the BNA Act.

We have a federal system not only because it is cheaper and better to organize government that way, it is the only conceivable way to have Canada function as a single country.

And why should the federal government dictate to a provincial government minimum standards for an area in provincial jurisdiction?

I suggest that you grow up and realize that if there is nothing in common between different regions of a county, then it is NOT a country. If you want to be entirely different and have no consideration for anyone else, I'd suggest you separate. Just when you are drink and scream all night long, your roommates will tell you to leave eventually. YOu can't just share a country or a house with other people and behave like you are on your own.

[Saturn]

Perhaps this is a way to appease Quebeckers while tricking Albertans into believing they are getting something they want too.

Obviously any opening of the constitution will involve porkbarrelling, likely mostly with Quebec getting the benefits. This is just a clever way of making Harper's base believe it's for their own good.

Sneaky Mr. Harper.

But constitutional debates nearing an acceptable government vote of confidence time with a minority parliment.... it's suicide.

In case you haven't noticed, Quebec has 3 times more seats in Parliament than Alberta does. On top of that, no matter what Harper does, he won't lose more than a seat or two in Alberta. He isn't sneaky, he is smart enough to realize that.

A lot of people in the west don't want Quebec getting special powers and what have you and to be honest why should they, they are different, not better. You are talking about the region which gutted the Progressive Conservative party, like I say it's not wise to piss off a sleeping dragon because if he ever decides to wake up there will be hell to pay.

A lot of people in the west don't want Quebec getting special powers but they won't vote against the Conservatives over it anyway. If they do, then the whole long live Reform - kill the PC party thing will happen all over again. Harper has hit the peak in all regions except Quebec and he needs Quebec to get a majority. He knows that he won't lose more than a few seats in the Prairies over giving Quebec special powers. He is smart enough to know that and he will use it to get a majority.

[blueblood]

Perhaps this is a way to appease Quebeckers while tricking Albertans into believing they are getting something they want too.

Obviously any opening of the constitution will involve porkbarrelling, likely mostly with Quebec getting the benefits. This is just a clever way of making Harper's base believe it's for their own good.

Sneaky Mr. Harper.

But constitutional debates nearing an acceptable government vote of confidence time with a minority parliment.... it's suicide.

In case you haven't noticed, Quebec has 3 times more seats in Parliament than Alberta does. On top of that, no matter what Harper does, he won't lose more than a seat or two in Alberta. He isn't sneaky, he is smart enough to realize that.

A lot of people in the west don't want Quebec getting special powers and what have you and to be honest why should they, they are different, not better. You are talking about the region which gutted the Progressive Conservative party, like I say it's not wise to piss off a sleeping dragon because if he ever decides to wake up there will be hell to pay.

A lot of people in the west don't want Quebec getting special powers but they won't vote against the Conservatives over it anyway. If they do, then the whole long live Reform - kill the PC party thing will happen all over again. Harper has hit the peak in all regions except Quebec and he needs Quebec to get a majority. He knows that he won't lose more than a few seats in the Prairies over giving Quebec special powers. He is smart enough to know that and he will use it to get a majority.

If it comes down to that, I also know that most Quebecers don't agree with many of the policies of the CPC, and if the whole quebec unity thing was solved, i'd think they'd be voting Liberal unless the CPC went through a major policy overhaul.

[geoffrey]

In case you haven't noticed, Quebec has 3 times more seats in Parliament than Alberta does. On top of that, no matter what Harper does, he won't lose more than a seat or two in Alberta. He isn't sneaky, he is smart enough to realize that and use it to his advantage.

I have noticed that... and so did Mulroney.

It cost the PC party it's relevance permenantly.

This screw the west, we'll take the rest attitude from Trudeau, to Mulroney, to Chretien and now apparently from our own boy Harper... it needs to end. You see alot of sepertist sympathies on these forums. You see Mr. Morton finishing a not so distant second from Dinning in today's leadership contest.

If Morton is elected, Harper has a tough road ahead of him if he continues down such a reckless path of Quebec appeasement at all cost.

[hiti]

Well, well, well... seems that Steve is again misleading Canadians. Within the BNA ACT there are shared responsibilities which, if Harper gets his way, will become exclusively provincial and Canadian standards will be no more.

For example, under education the BNA Act states:

(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.

I take that to mean that Ottawa has every right to standardize education standards across Canada and to force the provinces to comply.

And another example which exposes the duplicity of Steve:

Agriculture and Immigration.

95. In each Province the Legislature may make Laws in relation to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from Time to Time Make Laws in relation to Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration into all or any of the Provinces; and any Law of the Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long and as far as it is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada.

Seems like Harper is not only trying to rewrite the constitution but also the BNA Act in his own image without consultation of Canadians.

[geoffrey]

The intent of that section has everything to do with relgious schools, nothing about education standards unfortunately. That's the full jurisdiction of the provinces.

The full context:

93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:--

(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union:

(2) All the Powers, Privileges and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec:

(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen's Subjects in relation to Education:

(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.(50)

A special note... this section doesn't apply to Quebec. Someone had asked before what special benefits and rights they have... here's one.

[Saturn]

If they open up the constitution they should take away provincial powers, not federal. We've had enough of the provinces bickering with each other and with the federal government. This confederation of ours has turned into a bunch of screaming children fighting over each other's toys. The country comes before the provinces and the provinces should know their place - behind and below the federal government. I don't care how many provincial politicians want to be presidents and to be present at international (country level) meetings, they should shut up and know their place - they are regional politicians not presidents and prime ministers.

[Saturn]

In case you haven't noticed, Quebec has 3 times more seats in Parliament than Alberta does. On top of that, no matter what Harper does, he won't lose more than a seat or two in Alberta. He isn't sneaky, he is smart enough to realize that and use it to his advantage.

I have noticed that... and so did Mulroney.

It cost the PC party it's relevance permenantly.

This screw the west, we'll take the rest attitude from Trudeau, to Mulroney, to Chretien and now apparently from our own boy Harper... it needs to end. You see alot of sepertist sympathies on these forums. You see Mr. Morton finishing a not so distant second from Dinning in today's leadership contest.

If Morton is elected, Harper has a tough road ahead of him if he continues down such a reckless path of Quebec appeasement at all cost.

So what do you suggest will happen? Morton will strangle Harper? Or are we talking civil war?