The Dismantling of Canada

[jdobbin]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/harper_dumont

As unity critic in 1995 for the now-defunct Reform party, Harper proposed 20 measures to "modernize and decentralize Canada" and to "assert the autonomy of the provinces." He wanted to transfer federal powers in nine areas - including natural resources, social services, language, culture and manpower training - exclusively to the provinces and forbid any new federal spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

He also proposed giving provincial governments the power to appoint Supreme Court judges, Bank of Canada board members and lieutenant-governors.

During a hiatus from politics in 2001, Harper exhibited outright antipathy toward federal authority, famously co-authoring a letter to Alberta's then-premier, Ralph Klein. In it, he argued it was essential to "build firewalls around Alberta to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction."

For his part, Dumont co-founded the Action democratique du Quebec with Jean Allaire, author of a radical 1991 report that called on Ottawa to hand over 22 areas of jurisdiction to the provinces. Under Allaire's prescription, the feds would be left with sole jurisdiction over just five areas - defence, tariffs, currency, the national debt and equalization - and they'd have to share responsibility with the provinces in areas such as foreign policy and the post office.

If Harper gets his majority, do you think he will carry out what he described in 2001?

[August1991]

I guess this is the Version 2.0 model of *Scary, Scary* Harper™.

This latest update contains a whole new module designed to strike fear in urban Ontarians (ie. Torontonians). Stephen Harpocon is no longer a closet fundamentalist - he's now a closet separatist!

I wouldn't give alot of credence to Joan Bryden's analytical skills. Here's what she was saying in the Walrus just over a year ago about Quebec and the Conservatives (bear in mind that she wrote this after the 2006 federal election in which the Tories won 10 seats):

But if Liberal prospects are grim, they’re even worse for the Conservatives. The Bloc’s formidable presence has polarized politics in Quebec, with hardcore federalists rallying to the Grits. Squeezed out in Quebec, the Conservatives struggle for traction in Ontario, where national unity concerns resonate strongly with voters. “It’s sort of damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” concedes Lawrence Cannon, Conservative leader Stephen Harper’s Quebec lieutenant. Indeed, any Conservative support for the Bloc — even on the natural issues of devolving more powers to inevitably hurts them in Ontario.

But the election is just the start of the nightmare scenario for federalists who fear that Liberal Premier Jean Charest’s unpopular provincial government will shortly be turfed by a resurgent Parti Québécois with the newly minted, hip youngster André Boisclair at the helm. The last thing they need is sixty Bloc MPs monopolizing local media and community events in their ridings and unleashing their campaign machines to help elect their PQ cousins.

Should the PQ win, the last thing the country needs is a feeble minority government in Ottawa facing a third, potentially fatal, referendum on Quebec independence. “I think it does help the separatist cause to say the country’s not manageable,” says Jack Jedwab, executive director of the Association for Canadian Studies in Montreal. “It’s a vicious circle in a way.” Worse, Canadian taxpayers are underwriting the Bloc’s success — all because of the sponsorship scandal, the gift that keeps on giving to the Bloc.

Link

As for myself, given the sheer incompetence of the federal administration that has recently come to light (census counts, immigration backlogs, RCMP pension, SIN card security, passport delays), maybe devolution of powers makes sense.

The Liberal Party of Canada really needs some time out to think about what it is, what Canada is and what it wants.

[Michael Bluth]

The Liberal Party of Canada really needs some time out to think about what it is, what Canada is and what it wants.

They don't need time to think. It's all very clear.

The Liberals are Canada's Natural Govering Party. Canada is the country they deserve to govern. The Liberal Party of Canada wants to be restored to its rightful place. All pretty simple.

[Catchme]

As unity critic in 1995 for the now-defunct Reform party, Harper proposed 20 measures to "modernize and decentralize Canada" and to "assert the autonomy of the provinces." He wanted to transfer federal powers in nine areas - including natural resources, social services, language, culture and manpower training - exclusively to the provinces and forbid any new federal spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

During a hiatus from politics in 2001, Harper exhibited outright antipathy toward federal authority, famously co-authoring a letter to Alberta's then-premier, Ralph Klein. In it, he argued it was essential to "build firewalls around Alberta to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction."

If Harper gets his majority, do you think he will carry out what he described in 2001?

Nope, he has tasted the power of calling the shots for the largest and richest country in the world.

[jdobbin]

As for myself, given the sheer incompetence of the federal administration that has recently come to light (census counts, immigration backlogs, RCMP pension, SIN card security, passport delays), maybe devolution of powers makes sense.

The Liberal Party of Canada really needs some time out to think about what it is, what Canada is and what it wants.

You realize that the census was done under Tory administration, ditto passports. The RCMP pension problem started under the Liberals most definitely as did SIN card security. They continue to be problems under the Tories.

Incompetence isn't restricted to federal governments. Collapsing highway bridges are Quebec's own fault.

Perhaps making government more effective should be the goal rather than creating a loose association of regions.

[Michael Bluth]

If Harper gets his majority, do you think he will carry out what he described in 2001?

Here is the so-called Firewall Letter.

In the letter the authors urge the Premier of Alberta to use the powers under his discretion.

So there isn't anything Harper can carry out contained in the letter.

[August1991]

In the letter the authors urge the Premier of Alberta to use the powers under his discretion.

So there isn't anything Harper can carry out contained in the letter.

Well, this week there will be an announcement apparently about Alberta taking over immigration.

Next week, it's expected that Alberta's Conservative government, along with the federal Tories, will announce a new immigration arrangement between the province and the feds that will essentially have Alberta take over the file.

It's not, apparently, going to be as good a deal as what Quebec has (no surprise there) but it's better than the current situation of incompetence and glacial movement of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

Licia Corbella

The constitution states that immigration is a shared jurisdiction. Quebec selects all skilled immigrants and nothing would stop Alberta from doing the same.

[jdobbin]

The constitution states that immigration is a shared jurisdiction. Quebec selects all skilled immigrants and nothing would stop Alberta from doing the same.

Does the Constitution state that?

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Const/c1867_e.html#distribution

25. Naturalization and Aliens.

There are agreements, yes. But responsibility lies solely with the federal government.

[Michael Bluth]

Well, this week there will be an announcement apparently about Alberta taking over immigration.

Quebec selects all skilled immigrants and nothing would stop Alberta from doing the same.

Nothing can stop any other province from apporaching the Federal Government for the same deal.

Don't really see anything wrong with that.

[weaponeer]

I like the idea of giving the power to the provs. Day to day issues like health, education etc should be at the prov level. The feds should handle the really big issues, foreign policy, defence, enviornment etc... The feds should handle the issues that effect the entire country, not the things that effect a single prov or municipality. Quebecs health care system should not effect how BC does business. The education system in PEI does not determine how Sask should teach etc.....

Pollution travels from prov to prov, fed issue. Military, RCMP & CSIS cover the whole country, fed juristiction. Foreign policy, Canada & the world, fed territory. Highway speed limits in NB have no bearing on the limits in Ontario, local prov issue......

[geoffrey]

As someone that would vote more for Scary Harper than Real Harper, it's unfortunate that most of this simply won't come to be. It doesn't really fly outside of Alberta/Quebec.

[August1991]

Does the Constitution state that?

Section 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 only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada.

According to the constitution, Agriculture and Immigration are shared jurisdictions.

The practical effect of this is that, for example, Quebec selects all skilled worker immigrants destined to Quebec and the federal government determines only whether these immigrants meet criminal and health standards.

[Keepitsimple]

Giving the Provinces more power and responsibilities, akin to what is in the Constitution, is nothing new. We've taken a couple of formal stabs at it. The last was the Charlottetown Accords back in 1992. This was an agreement that attempted to hammer out a devolution of powers from Ottawa to the provinces. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:

The Charlottetown Accord attempted to resolve long-standing disputes around the division of powers between federal and provincial jurisdiction. It provided for exclusive provincial jurisdiction over forestry, mining and other natural resources, and cultural policy. The federal government, however, would have retained jurisdiction over national cultural bodies such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Film Board. The accord also required the federal and provincial governments to harmonize policy in areas such as telecommunications, labour development and training, regional development and immigration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottetown_Accord

The Charlottetown Accord was put together 15 years ago and Canada has since evolved and matured - especially in areas of Healthcare and Education, so it's not surprising that the context of current discussions would be even broader than it was in 1992.

[Charles Anthony]

If Harper gets his majority, do you think he will carry out what he described in 2001?

I hope so.

Perhaps making government more effective should be the goal rather than creating a loose association of regions.

I disagree. Should collapsing bridges in Quebec be managed by the government in Ottawa?

[Keepitsimple]

Your title of "Dismantling Canada" is pretty scary. Funny how the article starts as another whack at Harper but the last sentence of the article says:

"It's a huge step forward for Canada, just because the nature of the debate is going to change and we're going to finally get beyond the ghosts of (failed constitutional accords) Meech Lake and Charlottetown."

And with that said....I totally agree - it's a very welcome step.

[B. Max]

Anything that takes away the prize for federal politicians is a good thing. The ability for politicians and actitist judges to exercise power they don't by doing end runs around the constitution and play one part of the country against the other needs to be stopped.

[BornAlbertan]

Nope, he has tasted the power of calling the shots for the largest and richest country in the world.

He is calling the shots for Russia, the USA AND Canada? Wow...that is power!

[jdobbin]

Your title of "Dismantling Canada" is pretty scary. Funny how the article starts as another whack at Harper but the last sentence of the article says:

"It's a huge step forward for Canada, just because the nature of the debate is going to change and we're going to finally get beyond the ghosts of (failed constitutional accords) Meech Lake and Charlottetown."

And with that said....I totally agree - it's a very welcome step.

The article said the "gutting of the federal government." For me that means the dismantling of Canada in favour of the provinces.

The last comment was in reference to there not being a referendum.

[jdobbin]

According to the constitution, Agriculture and Immigration are shared jurisdictions.

The practical effect of this is that, for example, Quebec selects all skilled worker immigrants destined to Quebec and the federal government determines only whether these immigrants meet criminal and health standards.

You are correct. I mistook naturalization and citizenship which are solely in the federal purview.

[jdobbin]

I hope so.

I disagree. Should collapsing bridges in Quebec be managed by the government in Ottawa?

Well, we all know that you are not just content on federalism being dismantled but all government.

As far as bridges collapsing, I'm sure your answer is that they all be private.

[PolyNewbie]

The Council Of Canadians talk about this quite a bit. They have a form you can mail into Uncle Steve to protest.

It realy is a scary scary thing. All your rights will be signed over to corporate interests. You become a unit of production - a tool. You will have no more rights than a hammer in your tool box.

Most people that ignore this can't be too much smarter than a bag of hammers anyways. Maybe we deserve it as a group.

[Charles Anthony]

Well, we all know that you are not just content on federalism being dismantled but all government.

Are you trying to hijack your own thread??

As far as bridges collapsing, I'm sure your answer is that they all be private.

So..... your answer?? am I wrong to suggest that your answer is still that Quebec bridges should be managed by the government in Ottawa?

Is that what you mean by:

Incompetence isn't restricted to federal governments. Collapsing highway bridges are Quebec's own fault.

Perhaps making government more effective should be the goal rather than creating a loose association of regions.

???

Come on, you start a thread by with capitalized letters, as if you are reproducing the title of your quoted Opening Post article. You are using emotive spin on the article. When you are pressed to concretely address the validity of your opposition, what do you have to say? Behold: diddly.

I am very very serious about this because I see this Dismantling as being a good thing. People like me not only vote for this sort of thing but also pray to God that it be granted in our lifetime. You seem to suggest that it is bad. Why?

One more thing: how about you explain what you mean by "effective" with reference to government?

Concretely, I can see how one can define the distinct roles of each level of government. However, how (effective or ineffective) each level of fulfills those roles is highly subjective. I would rather my lower level of government (i.e., closer to me) be granted a subjective task than a government far away in Ottawa where there is a lot less accountability towards myself.

[jdobbin]

So..... your answer?? am I wrong to suggest that your answer is still that Quebec bridges should be managed by the government in Ottawa?

Come on, you start a thread by with capitalized letters, as if you are reproducing the title of your quoted Opening Post article. You are using emotive spin on the article. When you are pressed to concretely address the validity of your opposition, what do you have to say? Behold: diddly.

I am very very serious about this because I see this Dismantling as being a good thing. People like me not only vote for this sort of thing but also pray to God that it be granted in our lifetime. You seem to suggest that it is bad. Why?

One more thing: how about you explain what you mean by "effective" with reference to government?

Concretely, I can see how one can define the distinct roles of each level of government. However, how (effective or ineffective) each level of fulfills those roles is highly subjective. I would rather my lower level of government (i.e., closer to me) be granted a subjective task than a government far away in Ottawa where there is a lot less accountability towards myself.

I thought my meaning was plain: Transferring authority from Feds to provinces doesn't necessarily mean better managed government. I certainly wasn't suggesting that road management be taken away from the provinces and given to the Feds.

I stated government that is more effective in doing the job that it is tasked to do. In Quebec's case, the province should simply do a better job at something they have sole responsibility for. I don't think it should be transferred to municipalities or private enterprise in such a case because the highway has importance province-wide.

In fact, something like the Quebec highways might be better addressed by all three levels of government and private sector with one manager, namely the province.

What do you mean government far away? Do you mean geographically? The closer the government is, the better is? I think that is as subjective as well, don't you think? Some local government is not very responsive at all and the the regional or federal government addresses local needs better.

You seem to suggest the absence of government is good. Why? You have that much faith in private enterprise or your own individuality? You hint at looking forward to a breakdown of Canada into smaller and smaller pieces. Not just federalism but the provinces and municipalities. In favor of a corporate model?

I have nothing against business but I don't think they have ever governed an entire country before.

[Charles Anthony]

I stated government that is more effective in doing the job that is tasked to do.

How do you measure that in Canada?

[jdobbin]

How do you measure that in Canada?

In elections.