Harper to Propose Constitutional Amendment

[hiti]

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.

Still the Feds can dictate to the provinces on this issue, except Quebec. Unlike what Steve said that he wants to follow the BNA ACT and let every province be on their own.

[jefferiah]

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.

He doesnt have to move there. He has a vote and an opinion. If a politician proposes a system more like America's (and for a good reason, might I add) and a Canadian voter chooses to support him what business is that of yours. In essence you are saying, if you don't like Liberal policies you aren't Canadian, and you can leave. And Liberals call Conservatives unfair. I agree with reducing federal power. Canada is a large country. With all the power concentrated in Ottawa you have a central government making decisions for every individual region of Canada, regions they may have lost touch with. Individual regions have individual situations. Creating one policy for all does not always work.

[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.

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.

The trouble is they don't because the Provinces of this country who in reality do provide the services are not represented equally in its Federal Government. Federal parties trade one off against the other and put their support where it will have the most effect in their effort to maintain power.

Yes it is a retarded system and I seriously wonder if the country has a future unless it is changed.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Okay spin doctors, tell me why Quebec who is not a signatory to the 1982 Constitution can lay any claim to any part of it such as the not withstanding clause. Now knowing that they are not a party to the constitution we currently have does anybody think that they would be party to any other constitution when they can sit back and reap the rewards of the sweat stained efforts of others.

Wake up people the French are way better at this game then they are given credit for. Harper is dumb enough to take the bait and he will get called on it.

[Wilber]

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.

As the Federal government is dominated by Central Canada, I guess the rest of the country should know their place as well, behind and below Central Canada. At least until all the Provinces have an equal say in the Federal government such as in a US style Senate, I am in favour of them having more responsibility than the Feds. My Provincial government understands my needs and is far more accountable to me than the Federal Government.

I'll agree with one thing though, if the Federal government is going to dream up new programs like universal daycare it should be 100% responsible for funding and running them. If that is not possible they have no business even bringing it up. In the 90's the Liberals bailed on their funding commitment to health care and left the Provinces holding the bag. There is no reason to think they wouldn't do the same to their proposed daycare program if they found themselves in another financial pickle.

[B. Max]

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.

This has been one of Alberta's complaints for a long time. In the past the federal government has usurped powers from the provinces and done end runs around the constitution to exercise powers it doesnt have. Harpers amendment is a good idea but I'm afraid it will be done in a Canadian half measured way. The one worlder liberals and ndp will definately oppose it.

[jdobbin]

This has been one of Alberta's complaints for a long time. In the past the federal government has usurped powers from the provinces and done end runs around the constitution to exercise powers it doesnt have. Harpers amendment is a good idea but I'm afraid it will be done in a Canadian half measured way. The one worlder liberals and ndp will definately oppose it.

The provinces have similarly tried to grab federal responsibilities. Immigration and even defence issues are areas that provinces want to have a say in. Klein wanted a say in foreign policy. So does Quebec.

There is no end to what provinces want and no end to blaming the federal government. I think every Canadian prime minister has learned this fact.

[Wilber]

The provinces have similarly tried to grab federal responsibilities. Immigration and even defence issues are areas that provinces want to have a say in. Klein wanted a say in foreign policy. So does Quebec.

There is no end to what provinces want and no end to blaming the federal government. I think every Canadian prime minister has learned this fact.

Too bad both levels of government can't stick to their own responsibilities. I guess it is often easier to meddle in someone elses business than properly look after your own.

[B. Max]

This has been one of Alberta's complaints for a long time. In the past the federal government has usurped powers from the provinces and done end runs around the constitution to exercise powers it doesnt have. Harpers amendment is a good idea but I'm afraid it will be done in a Canadian half measured way. The one worlder liberals and ndp will definately oppose it.

The provinces have similarly tried to grab federal responsibilities. Immigration and even defence issues are areas that provinces want to have a say in. Klein wanted a say in foreign policy. So does Quebec.

There is no end to what provinces want and no end to blaming the federal government. I think every Canadian prime minister has learned this fact.

Having a say in, and grabbing federal powers are two different things. This amendment by its self would likely do little to limit federal powers unless it is is coupled with other measures. Ideally the federal government should be reduced to some sort of contractor status for the provinces and with only a hand full of the powers it now exercises.

[jdobbin]

Having a say in, and grabbing federal powers are two different things. This amendment by its self would likely do little to limit federal powers unless it is is coupled with other measures. Ideally the federal government should be reduced to some sort of contractor status for the provinces and with only a hand full of the powers it now exercises.

The provinces don't even want them to have that power though. They want control over defence and foreign policy.

[jdobbin]

Too bad both levels of government can't stick to their own responsibilities. I guess it is often easier to meddle in someone elses business than properly look after your own.

I tend to agree but then managing a nation is a fluid business. Even the United States bullies its way into state business when it suits them. Hello 55 mile and hour speed limit and drinking laws for under 21.

[August1991]

There is so much nonsense written in this thread about the Constitution and the federal spending power.

Anyway.

Here's Bob Rae's and Jack Layton's spin on it:

"What he wants to do is change the Constitution of Canada so that no government ever elected after him can ever do anything in the area of social policy that he deems to be wrong," Rae, one of the leading candidates for the Liberal leadership, told CTV Newsnet on Saturday.

"This is a guy who's trying to change Canada in a way that we will not be able to recognize it ... and this really means that Mr. Harper has to go."

In Vancouver, NDP Leader Jack Layton said, "Mr. Harper might like to try to dismantle the country's ability to have the quality of life that Canadians deserve, but we're certainly very, very wary of any steps like that."

CTV

Social policy should be in the domain of the provinces. It should not be the federal government that tries to set up a national day care scheme. It can't be done and it won't work. It would just be a huge waste of money. Even Dryden's ill-fated attempt was just a series of provincial agreements. Canada is simply too varied. PEI's health ministry is nothing like the ministry in Toronto - and that leaves aside the difference of Quebec.

Jack Layton and Bob Rae are tax-and-spend leftovers from the 1960s - the world just doesn't work that way. They also fail to make the distinction between Ontario and Canada.

Rae:

"Look, we're all one country here. ... what I'm saying here is don't tie the hands of the people you're electing to respond to the needs of the country," he said.

It is precisely politicians' hands that should be tied. What does Bob Rae think is the purpose of a constitution?

Who wants to give Bob Rae a free hand?

[Wilber]

The provinces don't even want them to have that power though. They want control over defence and foreign policy.

Although they may make noises about how the Federal Government has handled these responsibilities at times, with the exception of Quebec and foreign policy, I don't think they really want responsibility for either.

[Wilber]

Too bad both levels of government can't stick to their own responsibilities. I guess it is often easier to meddle in someone elses business than properly look after your own.

I tend to agree but then managing a nation is a fluid business. Even the United States bullies its way into state business when it suits them. Hello 55 mile and hour speed limit and drinking laws for under 21.

Both of which were idiotic.

[jdobbin]

Although they may make noises about how the Federal Government has handled these responsibilities at times, with the exception of Quebec and foreign policy, I don't think they really want responsibility for either.

Klein was pretty specific that he did. I have no idea if the new premier will feel the same way.

[jdobbin]

There is so much nonsense written in this thread about the Constitution and the federal spending power.

Anyway.

What is non-sense is the right wing thinking they will open up the constitution on one issue and be done with it.

Conservatives never learn.

[bk59]

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 idea of putting this in the Constitution is, to put it simply, bad. Sometimes, in order to create a valid national program some intrusion into provincial jurisidiction happens. The vice versa also happens - sometimes a valid provincial program will intrude into a federal jurisdiction. Let the balance be worked out through negotiation, not by putting hard limits on one side that reduce flexibility.

Even with an issue that seems to be within a provincial jurisdiction, there are sometimes aspects to the issue that require federal attention. Look at healthcare. It is a provincial jurisdiction, but what happens if there is something like a flu epidemic that is spreading across the country. Should the federal government be limited in the amount of money it spends to combat this?

The bottom line is, sometimes it is better to have a program run by the federal government and sometimes it is better to let the provinces run their own programs. Putting up hard barriers that favour one of those situations over the other is idiotic. Our provincial and federal governments should be working together, not spouting hardline ideological ideas that will actually make it harder for them to work together.

[Wilber]

Our provincial and federal governments should be working together, not spouting hardline ideological ideas that will actually make it harder for them to work together.

Nice concept but too often they work harder on what will get them the most votes in the next election.

[bk59]

Our provincial and federal governments should be working together, not spouting hardline ideological ideas that will actually make it harder for them to work together.

Nice concept but too often they work harder on what will get them the most votes in the next election.

Unfortunately you are right about where most politicians' priorities (seem to) lie. In my opinion, this is not an excuse for modifying the constitution. Do we want them to start working together, or do we want to put up a constitutional barrier that will make it even harder for the federal and provincial governments to cooperate?

[Charles Anthony]

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

What are you?!? Some good-for-nothing anarchist punk?!?

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

If you do not like it, you have two choices:

1) use your Almighty Power To Vote and "vote for change -- or whatever the popular catch-phrase happens to be" at the next election

2) move

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.

It sure beats the Liberal spending years that followed preceded them. They never ended with one tiny spending project. They never do. They were everything and everyone taking millions of our dollars worth. The AdScam and Katimavik did not keep this country together.

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.

That is an illusion. Name a few examples where the federal government is successful doing that.

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.

Actually, it is the other way around: smart and responsible people try to clean up their own backyard and improve their lot in life before they call it quits.

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?

Explain why they should.

I see no valid reason why that should be the case.

Exactly how are we better in the long run with a distant government telling us what our standards should be?????

A free market healthcare would screw over a low income earner, private healthcare should have STRICT government controls

Like what??

Would the strict government controls permit them to offer better quality service or to free up waiting lines in the public health-care system?

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.

Big deal. We change laws all of the time -- as we should.

Did you ever consider the possibility that the BNA Act might be out of date and does not address the needs of modern Canadians?

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

Any other province can get the same if they had the political will.

The country comes before the provinces and the provinces should know their place - behind and below the federal government.

Why should that be?

Ideally the federal government should be reduced to some sort of contractor status for the provinces and with only a hand full of the powers it now exercises.

Hell, I would say we should just reduce it down to the Governor General's office!

What is non-sense is the right wing thinking they will open up the constitution on one issue and be done with it.

Who cares???

Exactly what do you fear?

Even with an issue that seems to be within a provincial jurisdiction, there are sometimes aspects to the issue that require federal attention. Look at healthcare. It is a provincial jurisdiction, but what happens if there is something like a flu epidemic that is spreading across the country. Should the federal government be limited in the amount of money it spends to combat this?

Probably not but that is only part of the picture.

Even if the federal government has a bigger budget for a project, I would ask: does the federal government know what every smaller jurisdiction needs? Of course not.

Therefore, if the federal government was not collecting the taxes for healthcare to start, the provinces would be able to afford what they need.

Our provincial and federal governments should be working together, not spouting hardline ideological ideas that will actually make it harder for them to work together.

I believe the practical experience of governments is that bigger governments are less responsive to their constituents.

Do we want them to start working together, or do we want to put up a constitutional barrier that will make it even harder for the federal and provincial governments to cooperate?

If we compare two small governments (over two neighboring jurisdictions) to one great big government (over the same jurisdiction), I believe that we will get more rapid and useful action with the two small governments cooperating.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Open the damned constitution and lets get it done. Freaking cowards is what these fools are. There are so many areas that need to be addressed that it is actually critical that we deal with these problems immediately. Every issue is a festuring wound on the body of our society. If we don't have the guts to deal with the problems we don't deserve the right to call Canada a nation. This is another of the reasons I want Alberta out of confederation, the damned politicians are afraid of their own shadows!

If this nation wants to survive it must adapt to the political realities it faces. It is the function of elected representatives to govern, but if they decide not to legislate what is the point?

[cybercoma]

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

"Emotionally draining"

What a joke. We should avoid anything that might be "emotionally draining"! haha

[cybercoma]

There is so much nonsense written in this thread about the Constitution and the federal spending power.

Anyway.

Here's Bob Rae's and Jack Layton's spin on it:

"What he wants to do is change the Constitution of Canada so that no government ever elected after him can ever do anything in the area of social policy that he deems to be wrong," Rae, one of the leading candidates for the Liberal leadership, told CTV Newsnet on Saturday.

"This is a guy who's trying to change Canada in a way that we will not be able to recognize it ... and this really means that Mr. Harper has to go."

In Vancouver, NDP Leader Jack Layton said, "Mr. Harper might like to try to dismantle the country's ability to have the quality of life that Canadians deserve, but we're certainly very, very wary of any steps like that."

CTV

Social policy should be in the domain of the provinces. It should not be the federal government that tries to set up a national day care scheme. It can't be done and it won't work. It would just be a huge waste of money. Even Dryden's ill-fated attempt was just a series of provincial agreements. Canada is simply too varied. PEI's health ministry is nothing like the ministry in Toronto - and that leaves aside the difference of Quebec.

Jack Layton and Bob Rae are tax-and-spend leftovers from the 1960s - the world just doesn't work that way. They also fail to make the distinction between Ontario and Canada.

Rae:

"Look, we're all one country here. ... what I'm saying here is don't tie the hands of the people you're electing to respond to the needs of the country," he said.

It is precisely politicians' hands that should be tied. What does Bob Rae think is the purpose of a constitution?

Who wants to give Bob Rae a free hand?

You know, for being a Quebecker, your insight into federal politcs is spot on. I think the issue of this thread is one that Quebec and the rest of Canadians can agree on. Each province is better suited to fund, develop and oversee social programs than a detached central government in Ottawa.

Contrary to what Mr. Layton and Mr. Rae have said, the idea presented by PM Harper would vastly improve the scope and quality of social programs. The programs would serve the communities and funding/developement of these programs would be done closer to home. The idea is fantastic and I, for one, certainly hope it becomes a reality.

[jdobbin]

"Emotionally draining"

What a joke. We should avoid anything that might be "emotionally draining"! haha

You obviously must have enjoyed Mulroney's last foray's into Constitutional change that almost tore this country apart.

[jdobbin]

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.

It sure beats the Liberal spending years that followed preceded them. They never ended with one tiny spending project. They never do. They were everything and everyone taking millions of our dollars worth. The AdScam and Katimavik did not keep this country together.

The Conservatives under Mulroney certainly don't have anything to say about spending. Deficit financing was the rule of the day.

And taking away contracts from companies that bid lower and were technically superior.