A timely, insightful and important article that describes the Canadian project perfectly. Ottawa has usurped provincial responsibilities through the power of taxation and under the guise of the common good. Of course building an all powerful central government was also a great incentive. Over the course of time only Quebec fought to retain the provincial independence provided for in confederation. It is time that each province, not just Alberta, reclaim its independence.
Unfortunately, real federalism, where Ottawa sticks to its knitting, violates one of the most fundamental Canadian values: envy. Unscrupulous Liberals used envy to aggrandize Ottawa and ruin Canada.
One of the dysfunctions of Canadian federalism is that the federal government has shown little inclination to actually fulfill its core duty of ensuring free flow of trade, services, and labour between the provinces, or acting as arbitrator of disagreements.
If only the Federal government, all Provincial governments and all Municipal Goverenments would adhere to.
We now have a Canada where every level of government taxes Canadians to the max, wants to be responsible for everything when it suits them and nothing when things go bad. This is not leadership it is cowardness.
The following paragraphs in your article are thought provoking …
An earlier defence of federalism came from, of all people, Pierre Trudeau. In a 1957 essay Trudeau surprised his readers by siding with Maurice Duplessis against Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent’s decision to provide funds to provincial universities.
In words that would make a libertarian economist’s heart flutter, Trudeau wrote that: “if a government has at its disposal such a surplus of funds that it can undertake to support a part of the common good that does not lie within its jurisdiction, one may suspect that this government controls more than its share of taxation.”
Synergy makes Canada bigger than the sum of its provinces. But leadership is the key. Carney’s predecessor lost sight of that synergy and undermined it for his own political gain. Describing Canada as the world’s first “post nation state” without a national identity diminished a country not only in the eyes of the world but in the eyes of it’s own citizens.
Terrific article. It makes me think of the objective in the preamble to the US constitution which replaced the previous articles of confederation”: “to form a more perfect union”. This strikes me asan excellent depiction of what a more perfect union would look like for Canada.
Thank you sir for an informative and insightfull look at this topic.
I would agree you on evrything other than your implied suggestion that each province should have its own Criminal Code. That would be, imho, a step backward and given recent history, open that up to more potential political manipulation. The balkanized US systems don't hold out a shining example of uniform criminal justice. Not suggesting our administration of the system by each province is ideal but is more consistent in what I have seen.
Your assertion that the federal level needs to step back from trying to dictate levels of service in areas of provincial jurisdiction through fiscal is very important but that implies an even greater likelihood of significant variation in the levels of service in those areas, especially healthcare and education, but those are rightly P/T decisions which need to be addressed by the electors of each P/T to their elected bodies.
Interesting, albeit at a high level of generality. I am sorry that the writer did not spice his comments with a concrete "local" dilemma:: like highly centralizing and homogenizing "Charter" (thank you Pierre Trudeau!); and the difference of view in Quebec about the purported right of a public servant, to publicly proclaim their religious affiliation.
This is all backwards. The problem in Canada is that the Federal government is too weak.
We see this most prominently with the pipeline issue. Alberta wants a pipeline to the pacific. BC, historically at least, does not. Now pipeline proponents have a point when they say this is a national, or at least interprovincial, project that needs Federal oversight to get it done. The locals in BC shouldn’t be able to NIMBY their way to no pipeline if it’s on the national interest. The problem is the Feds are too weak to handle it on their own.
On the flip side, a lot of things have fallen to the Federal government because the provinces have willingly abandoned the field. Alberta separatists sometimes talk about wanting the same deal as Quebec. That deal is available any time the Alberta Legislature wants to take it, by doing the work to enact the requisite legislation. Setup the Alberta Provincial police and Alberta Pension Plan and whatever else. As has been pointed out many times by Jen Gerson, the problem isn’t that Alberta can’t, it’s that it doesn’t seem to want to.
What we’re left with is really the age old question of taxing power. Should Ottawa reduce taxes to vacate taxing space so that the provinces could raise taxes - to the extent that their respective populations would like - to cover services. The Harper government reducing the GST did exactly that, and yet the provinces are still lining up to ask for larger transfers from Ottawa at every opportunity. This is perhaps dysfunctional, but it’s not fundamentally about federalism. The provinces like it. Ottawa taxes and they spend. That the spending comes with strings attached, well, if they didn’t want to take the money perhaps there would be something to talk about. But the provinces do keep taking the money and asking for more, so it seems they don’t mind the strings that much. Even Alberta.
The federal government already has the jurisdiction to push a pipeline through BC and to force Quebec to transmit electricity from NL at a regulated return on infrastructure. It chooses not to do so.
A Utopian Federation is a wonderful idea and always has been. Unfortunately greed, envy and lust for power has and will continue to grow and dominate any such idealism. Selflessness is no longer a national political or provincial goal.
Aquinas? Rilke? That’s a lot of high falutin windbaggery dressing up a naked play for power. Separatist provincial elites in QC and AB, et al, want more power to wield over smaller groups of people so those elites can extract more economic advantage, and without the consent of those peoples. The reason why NL did not join in 1867 is that local power elites did not want to dilute their ability to extract maximum economic advantage over their local subjects. In 1949 the people of NL joined Canada despite the pressure of religious bigotry from the RC elite in cahoots with the St John’s merchant barons.
AB separatists are oil industry captive takers. Just as exploitive as St John’s merchants.
The author wants the provinces to take over criminal law? Fine. Let’s do a swap among Section 91 and 92 powers. I bet a vote of a majority of Canadian voters would trade you criminal law in exchange for natural resources.
A timely, insightful and important article that describes the Canadian project perfectly. Ottawa has usurped provincial responsibilities through the power of taxation and under the guise of the common good. Of course building an all powerful central government was also a great incentive. Over the course of time only Quebec fought to retain the provincial independence provided for in confederation. It is time that each province, not just Alberta, reclaim its independence.
Obviously correct.
Unfortunately, real federalism, where Ottawa sticks to its knitting, violates one of the most fundamental Canadian values: envy. Unscrupulous Liberals used envy to aggrandize Ottawa and ruin Canada.
One of the dysfunctions of Canadian federalism is that the federal government has shown little inclination to actually fulfill its core duty of ensuring free flow of trade, services, and labour between the provinces, or acting as arbitrator of disagreements.
This is one of the better articles that the Line has posted in quite some time. More of this, please.
Fantastic article!
If only the Federal government, all Provincial governments and all Municipal Goverenments would adhere to.
We now have a Canada where every level of government taxes Canadians to the max, wants to be responsible for everything when it suits them and nothing when things go bad. This is not leadership it is cowardness.
The following paragraphs in your article are thought provoking …
An earlier defence of federalism came from, of all people, Pierre Trudeau. In a 1957 essay Trudeau surprised his readers by siding with Maurice Duplessis against Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent’s decision to provide funds to provincial universities.
In words that would make a libertarian economist’s heart flutter, Trudeau wrote that: “if a government has at its disposal such a surplus of funds that it can undertake to support a part of the common good that does not lie within its jurisdiction, one may suspect that this government controls more than its share of taxation.”
Indeed. Peace, Order and Good Governance. Peace and Security, Critical Infrastructure, Social Development.
Synergy makes Canada bigger than the sum of its provinces. But leadership is the key. Carney’s predecessor lost sight of that synergy and undermined it for his own political gain. Describing Canada as the world’s first “post nation state” without a national identity diminished a country not only in the eyes of the world but in the eyes of it’s own citizens.
What a splendidly common sense view of how Canada could, and should, be.
Terrific article. It makes me think of the objective in the preamble to the US constitution which replaced the previous articles of confederation”: “to form a more perfect union”. This strikes me asan excellent depiction of what a more perfect union would look like for Canada.
Thank you sir for an informative and insightfull look at this topic.
I would agree you on evrything other than your implied suggestion that each province should have its own Criminal Code. That would be, imho, a step backward and given recent history, open that up to more potential political manipulation. The balkanized US systems don't hold out a shining example of uniform criminal justice. Not suggesting our administration of the system by each province is ideal but is more consistent in what I have seen.
Your assertion that the federal level needs to step back from trying to dictate levels of service in areas of provincial jurisdiction through fiscal is very important but that implies an even greater likelihood of significant variation in the levels of service in those areas, especially healthcare and education, but those are rightly P/T decisions which need to be addressed by the electors of each P/T to their elected bodies.
AB separatists are far from elites and have no association with the energy industry, despite the convenient narrative
Interesting, albeit at a high level of generality. I am sorry that the writer did not spice his comments with a concrete "local" dilemma:: like highly centralizing and homogenizing "Charter" (thank you Pierre Trudeau!); and the difference of view in Quebec about the purported right of a public servant, to publicly proclaim their religious affiliation.
This is all backwards. The problem in Canada is that the Federal government is too weak.
We see this most prominently with the pipeline issue. Alberta wants a pipeline to the pacific. BC, historically at least, does not. Now pipeline proponents have a point when they say this is a national, or at least interprovincial, project that needs Federal oversight to get it done. The locals in BC shouldn’t be able to NIMBY their way to no pipeline if it’s on the national interest. The problem is the Feds are too weak to handle it on their own.
On the flip side, a lot of things have fallen to the Federal government because the provinces have willingly abandoned the field. Alberta separatists sometimes talk about wanting the same deal as Quebec. That deal is available any time the Alberta Legislature wants to take it, by doing the work to enact the requisite legislation. Setup the Alberta Provincial police and Alberta Pension Plan and whatever else. As has been pointed out many times by Jen Gerson, the problem isn’t that Alberta can’t, it’s that it doesn’t seem to want to.
What we’re left with is really the age old question of taxing power. Should Ottawa reduce taxes to vacate taxing space so that the provinces could raise taxes - to the extent that their respective populations would like - to cover services. The Harper government reducing the GST did exactly that, and yet the provinces are still lining up to ask for larger transfers from Ottawa at every opportunity. This is perhaps dysfunctional, but it’s not fundamentally about federalism. The provinces like it. Ottawa taxes and they spend. That the spending comes with strings attached, well, if they didn’t want to take the money perhaps there would be something to talk about. But the provinces do keep taking the money and asking for more, so it seems they don’t mind the strings that much. Even Alberta.
The federal government already has the jurisdiction to push a pipeline through BC and to force Quebec to transmit electricity from NL at a regulated return on infrastructure. It chooses not to do so.
A Utopian Federation is a wonderful idea and always has been. Unfortunately greed, envy and lust for power has and will continue to grow and dominate any such idealism. Selflessness is no longer a national political or provincial goal.
Aquinas? Rilke? That’s a lot of high falutin windbaggery dressing up a naked play for power. Separatist provincial elites in QC and AB, et al, want more power to wield over smaller groups of people so those elites can extract more economic advantage, and without the consent of those peoples. The reason why NL did not join in 1867 is that local power elites did not want to dilute their ability to extract maximum economic advantage over their local subjects. In 1949 the people of NL joined Canada despite the pressure of religious bigotry from the RC elite in cahoots with the St John’s merchant barons.
AB separatists are oil industry captive takers. Just as exploitive as St John’s merchants.
The author wants the provinces to take over criminal law? Fine. Let’s do a swap among Section 91 and 92 powers. I bet a vote of a majority of Canadian voters would trade you criminal law in exchange for natural resources.
So, Mr Aquinas Anglin, do you want to trade?