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.
And at the same time, dipping its toes more and more into areas of provincial authority (dental care, pharmare, daycare, school lunches, etc). If only the Pierre Trudeau quote in this piece had been heeded by his son.
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.
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.”
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.
Perhaps on paper. But that’s only part of where political power resides. It seems pretty clear that the feds can only make it happen with substantial support from others.
The Feds have the authority. The Carney government can afford to spend political capital to back the bus over the BC government, QC government, indigenous groups and miscellaneous other activist groups and blame it on Trump
Carney can afford to do it because there is a lot more public support for it. Trudeau eventually came around and couldn’t do it, so he had to buy the pipeline. Harper would have done it if he could, but he couldn’t.
This is not a story of a strong federal government that can decide to make it happen. It’s the story of a weak federal government that can do it when there is strong support for it anyway.
Careful what you wish for: a stronger federal government might also look at opposition to more pipeline construction or oilsands expansion in bigger provinces like Ontario and Quebec and overrule Alberta on those areas. Strong federal governments can mean that instead of dealing with locals complaining about what's in their backyard, you're subject to many more busybodies scrutinizing what you put in *your* backyard.
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.
I’ve lived in three provinces in different regions of this country. So far as I can see, with the obvious exception of Quebec, we all share the same assumptions and aspirations. When I meet someone from Nova Scotia or Alberta or British Columbia, I understand their way of thinking because it’s basically the same as mine. That’s because we all share the same political and legal system and the same colonial history, and the same expectations that our rights will be protected.
I have never bought into the idea that we are distinct cultures. Sure, there are regional variations in cuisine and local histories, or our recreational activities might differ; some of us go to the camp, others to the cabin, still others to the cottage.
Nevertheless, everywhere you go in this country, we all want the same things: a home in the suburbs, a reasonable chance at getting a good job, our annual vacation down south, ready access to health care, a decent education for our children. We all watch Netflix, go to the same concerts, listen to the same music, cheer for our local teams, and enroll our kids in minor sports.
The only differences of any consequence are due to the different economies of each region. From that flow different economic, labour, or fiscal policies, which are the legitimate concerns of our premiers. And sure, Ottawa can be accused of ignoring the unique requirements of Alberta’s resource-based economy. Or skewing too much to Central Canada’s manufacturing economy. Or ignoring British Columbia’s genuine concerns over running a pipeline to its northwest coast.
But so far as I can see, all the angst over “unique regional cultures” boils down to each premier protecting their own fiefdom, at the expense of the national interest. A good example of that are all the barriers raised to interprovincial trade, and the agonizingly slow process of removing them so that we can raise our GDP by a few points.
Don’t get me wrong – the federal government has definitely steamrollered one province or the other over the years. Justin Trudeau’s administration is a perfect illustration of that. But the federal government provides a necessary counterbalance to the overreaching ambitions of the provinces, and I for one am glad they do.
Well said. Also, Alberta exists only because of Canada. There was no “Alberta” barely a century ago. Alberta is an invention of Ottawa. Alberta didn’t get mineral rights until a quarter century after Ottawa created the jurisdiction. Provincehood, and oil wealth, were granted by Ottawa, and they are newborn and wholly a creation of Confederation. I have a cousin in Newfoundland alive today that is 10 years older than Alberta’s mineral rights. Provincial politicians in Alberta should be grateful, not resentful, of what was given to them. But then, kids today are such ingrates.
One of the biggest cancers in our political process is premiers acting like they are running their own country and stoking “ us versus them “ feelings as much as they can
After a long week of being hit over the head by the rational & irrational arguments over Alberta, Canada and the role they play I can only say what a great submission to end Friday on.
I didn't feel like I was being screamed at or hit over the head but serenaded by a slow but meaningful piece of music. I found myself relaxed & nodding my head going yes yes.
Thanks Matt & Jenn for the right piece at the right time.
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.
I missed the part where you make similar points that Quebec should be grateful that hydro isn’t nationalized? bc’s hydro, thermal coal, forestry? farming in the prairies?
What’s your vision of federalism? We all just thank our lucky stars that we aren’t queuing for bread in a fully centralized state?
You don’t address the core argument at all. Federalism was designed this way to survive. The us went further, ensuring an elected senate would not permit steamrolling of regional concerns.
Absent that, we should make sure we respect the framework we did put in place. Plainly and to great woke fanfare, the feds did not.
The unconstitutional legislation that eviscerated private investment in major infrastructure is still on the books. We defacto nationalized pipeline and other major infrastructure projects. An MOU and MPO simply add more acronyms to the Carney office of central planning.
And for what? Because central Canada convinced itself that the molecules that sustain our lives and those of allies - somehow don’t? That it’s better to source them from dictators than their fellow Canadians? Under what perverse moral calculus?
What ever it is, don’t expect the rest of Canada to willingly oblige with woke falsehoods based on James Cameron movies, and climate models that ignore the near term calamities - war - that come from enriching dictators.
Your argument is a perfect example as to why separation of powers is absolutely necessary.
Natural resources are physical. Their development imposes local benefits and costs, and rightfully falls under Provincial control. The split between Federal and Provincial jurisdiction is logical. Unfortunately, the Federal government has invaded Provincial jurisdiction while neglecting its own. The tax split is also too biased towards the Federal government.
@DaDa Canada. Duh. Quebec separatists should be grateful. The majority of Quebeckers are - they voted three times for a stronger central government. A clear majority of Albertans and Canadians voted for a stronger central government in 1992. Your name calling signals the weakness of your argument. And what is with your obsessive use of the adjective “woke”? There is nothing woke or weak about opposing secession movements. They lead to civil wars. And secession threats as blackmail so a faction can gain more power at the expense of the majority in the province and the country? That is not just unproductive, it’s a “bet the farm” negotiation that might backfire. If you reopen the Constitution, a majority of Canadians will likely vote to remove the tools of blackmail and resentment from provincial demagogues - the accidents of geography like oil and hydro. Our ancestors in 1776 and 1812 fought for this land and in 1867 they made a country not for provincial administrators but for ALL Canadians to share.
This is literally revisionist history. This is not what the history books or historians say about how Canada was created, at all.
And yes, let's have a new constitution. The political elites didn't have the balls to out up the Charter for a referendum ratification, this time let's take it to the people.
It was taken to the people in 1992. A clear majority of Canadians in all regions rejected regional grievance politics and voted for a stronger central government.
There was a national vote in 1992 on constitutional amendments that would give more power to provinces. A large majority of Canadians voted against it. It would help if you read more history. These are also historical facts: Alberta is an administrative region of Canada. It had no independence prior to being created by Canada. The same is true of Quebec, and Ontario, and every other province. There is no sovereignty in Canada but the sovereignty of the people of Canada as represented in the Parliament of Canada. These are all legally tested and indisputable facts. No indigenous group has national sovereignty, no matter how they may claim otherwise. No factional movement in Alberta, funded by oil interests and aping MAGA, has sovereignty. No bigoted faction in Quebec or anywhere has sovereignty. In the peaceful democratic system that is Canada, the world’s most peaceful democracy ever, if a vast majority of Canadians voted to grant sovereignty to some existing part of Canada, so be it. I will bet you any amount that will never happen. In the meantime, no faction anywhere in Canada has a unilateral right to declare separation or sovereignty. Those are legal and historic facts. The rest of what separatists say is just rhetorical gas. The vast majority of Canadians are grateful for the peace and prosperity they enjoy. The separatists are ingrates who should at least be grateful that they are allowed to air their grievances, however irrational. Most democracies make it illegal to promote separation.
You make it sounds like separatism (and First Nations assertiveness) is predicated upon asking for permission. That isn't how this usually worked throughout history.
Separatism is usually "we are leaving and we dare you to do anything about it" type situation.
Remember, a court is only as good as it's ability to enforce its rulings.
As for 1992 referendum, that was generations ago now and it was a "take it or leave it" vote, not a ratification vote. The Charter was never ratified via referendum because they knew damn well it was elite driven and the regular folks would vote against it.
I’m not interested in separatism or reopening the constitution.
Your vision of a federal government that completely steamrolls regional expertise and priorities would cause both.
Woke refers to the state of artificial enlightenment that ensues when you ignore the molecular basis of the life you live, insist that technology that will replace it is manifest when it is not: I.e insist on things that are not true, and impose asymmetric costs on a region that knows those arguments are FOS.
But let’s be honest. You don’t seem to want to address any material points in the article or my post.
you simply wish to lord over the provinces and their concerns with ‘you should be grateful we could make this so much worse’.
If you want honesty, please stick to facts. Regional grievances were taken to the people in the 1992 referendum. A clear majority of Canadians in all regions rejected regional grievance politics and voted for a stronger central government. And your excuse for name-calling people as "woke" because they disagree with you is more word salad nonsense. What exactly does this mean: "Woke refers to the state of artificial enlightenment that ensues when you ignore the molecular basis of the life you live, insist that technology that will replace it is manifest when it is not: I.e insist on things that are not true, and impose asymmetric costs on a region that knows those arguments are FOS."
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.
Ottawa suffers from mission creep, mostly driven by vote chasing fundamentals. It makes absolutely no sense for a federal government to be in a "national" school lunch program. And yet the Provinces dutifully sign up to receive the funding, forgetting that there is a very high chance that the feds will choke off the financial support and leave others holding the bag.
In all fairness, all levels of government are straying far away from their core mandates. Toronto can provide a long list of core services that are in need of reform and improvement. Instead of working to make things better, Toronto is going into the GROCERY business.
We are governed by shallow minds who don't want to do the hard work of fixing messes, but always looking for new messes to ignore.
“Federalism is thus not a solution to our regional differences and divisions — it was never meant to be — but a recognition of them.”
America’s first Chief Justice, John Jay, offered a similar reflection, this time recognizing not difference but sameness. He observed:
“… I have … often taken notice, that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people; a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion …”
We can see the recognition, and embracing, of differences as a sort of balance or check on ourselves. A very real, yet largely unwritten set of checks and balances within Canada’s constitution.
Quebec, for example, with its different language and religion, causes other communities in Canada to think about things differently. This association similarly exposes Quebec to how others may also have different perspectives. The overall result of this association has generally been positive, now for over 350 years.
The dynamic from the various associations within Canada represents what, at one level may at first be seen as differences has revealed more that unites than what divides. We might do well to consider that this results reflects the benefits of strong Federal government.
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.
And at the same time, dipping its toes more and more into areas of provincial authority (dental care, pharmare, daycare, school lunches, etc). If only the Pierre Trudeau quote in this piece had been heeded by his son.
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.
This is one of the better articles that the Line has posted in quite some time. More of this, please.
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.
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.”
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.
Perhaps on paper. But that’s only part of where political power resides. It seems pretty clear that the feds can only make it happen with substantial support from others.
The Feds have the authority. The Carney government can afford to spend political capital to back the bus over the BC government, QC government, indigenous groups and miscellaneous other activist groups and blame it on Trump
Carney can afford to do it because there is a lot more public support for it. Trudeau eventually came around and couldn’t do it, so he had to buy the pipeline. Harper would have done it if he could, but he couldn’t.
This is not a story of a strong federal government that can decide to make it happen. It’s the story of a weak federal government that can do it when there is strong support for it anyway.
Careful what you wish for: a stronger federal government might also look at opposition to more pipeline construction or oilsands expansion in bigger provinces like Ontario and Quebec and overrule Alberta on those areas. Strong federal governments can mean that instead of dealing with locals complaining about what's in their backyard, you're subject to many more busybodies scrutinizing what you put in *your* backyard.
Politics is about tradeoffs. A stronger Federal government would be able to make decisions and stick to them, more than it is now. Right or wrong.
In a country that spends too much time doing consultations and paperwork before the decision I think that would be a good thing.
Interprovincial infrastructure is literally federal jurisdiction. Dental care and day care isn't.
The feds really need to learn how to stay in their lane.
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.
I’ve lived in three provinces in different regions of this country. So far as I can see, with the obvious exception of Quebec, we all share the same assumptions and aspirations. When I meet someone from Nova Scotia or Alberta or British Columbia, I understand their way of thinking because it’s basically the same as mine. That’s because we all share the same political and legal system and the same colonial history, and the same expectations that our rights will be protected.
I have never bought into the idea that we are distinct cultures. Sure, there are regional variations in cuisine and local histories, or our recreational activities might differ; some of us go to the camp, others to the cabin, still others to the cottage.
Nevertheless, everywhere you go in this country, we all want the same things: a home in the suburbs, a reasonable chance at getting a good job, our annual vacation down south, ready access to health care, a decent education for our children. We all watch Netflix, go to the same concerts, listen to the same music, cheer for our local teams, and enroll our kids in minor sports.
The only differences of any consequence are due to the different economies of each region. From that flow different economic, labour, or fiscal policies, which are the legitimate concerns of our premiers. And sure, Ottawa can be accused of ignoring the unique requirements of Alberta’s resource-based economy. Or skewing too much to Central Canada’s manufacturing economy. Or ignoring British Columbia’s genuine concerns over running a pipeline to its northwest coast.
But so far as I can see, all the angst over “unique regional cultures” boils down to each premier protecting their own fiefdom, at the expense of the national interest. A good example of that are all the barriers raised to interprovincial trade, and the agonizingly slow process of removing them so that we can raise our GDP by a few points.
Don’t get me wrong – the federal government has definitely steamrollered one province or the other over the years. Justin Trudeau’s administration is a perfect illustration of that. But the federal government provides a necessary counterbalance to the overreaching ambitions of the provinces, and I for one am glad they do.
Well said. Also, Alberta exists only because of Canada. There was no “Alberta” barely a century ago. Alberta is an invention of Ottawa. Alberta didn’t get mineral rights until a quarter century after Ottawa created the jurisdiction. Provincehood, and oil wealth, were granted by Ottawa, and they are newborn and wholly a creation of Confederation. I have a cousin in Newfoundland alive today that is 10 years older than Alberta’s mineral rights. Provincial politicians in Alberta should be grateful, not resentful, of what was given to them. But then, kids today are such ingrates.
All provinces are equal or there is no federation. Remmebr, vast regions of Quebec and Ontario were originally part of Canada beofr being transfered.
One of the biggest cancers in our political process is premiers acting like they are running their own country and stoking “ us versus them “ feelings as much as they can
Indeed. Peace, Order and Good Governance. Peace and Security, Critical Infrastructure, Social Development.
What a splendidly common sense view of how Canada could, and should, be.
After a long week of being hit over the head by the rational & irrational arguments over Alberta, Canada and the role they play I can only say what a great submission to end Friday on.
I didn't feel like I was being screamed at or hit over the head but serenaded by a slow but meaningful piece of music. I found myself relaxed & nodding my head going yes yes.
Thanks Matt & Jenn for the right piece at the right time.
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?
I missed the part where you make similar points that Quebec should be grateful that hydro isn’t nationalized? bc’s hydro, thermal coal, forestry? farming in the prairies?
What’s your vision of federalism? We all just thank our lucky stars that we aren’t queuing for bread in a fully centralized state?
You don’t address the core argument at all. Federalism was designed this way to survive. The us went further, ensuring an elected senate would not permit steamrolling of regional concerns.
Absent that, we should make sure we respect the framework we did put in place. Plainly and to great woke fanfare, the feds did not.
The unconstitutional legislation that eviscerated private investment in major infrastructure is still on the books. We defacto nationalized pipeline and other major infrastructure projects. An MOU and MPO simply add more acronyms to the Carney office of central planning.
And for what? Because central Canada convinced itself that the molecules that sustain our lives and those of allies - somehow don’t? That it’s better to source them from dictators than their fellow Canadians? Under what perverse moral calculus?
What ever it is, don’t expect the rest of Canada to willingly oblige with woke falsehoods based on James Cameron movies, and climate models that ignore the near term calamities - war - that come from enriching dictators.
Your argument is a perfect example as to why separation of powers is absolutely necessary.
Natural resources are physical. Their development imposes local benefits and costs, and rightfully falls under Provincial control. The split between Federal and Provincial jurisdiction is logical. Unfortunately, the Federal government has invaded Provincial jurisdiction while neglecting its own. The tax split is also too biased towards the Federal government.
@DaDa Canada. Duh. Quebec separatists should be grateful. The majority of Quebeckers are - they voted three times for a stronger central government. A clear majority of Albertans and Canadians voted for a stronger central government in 1992. Your name calling signals the weakness of your argument. And what is with your obsessive use of the adjective “woke”? There is nothing woke or weak about opposing secession movements. They lead to civil wars. And secession threats as blackmail so a faction can gain more power at the expense of the majority in the province and the country? That is not just unproductive, it’s a “bet the farm” negotiation that might backfire. If you reopen the Constitution, a majority of Canadians will likely vote to remove the tools of blackmail and resentment from provincial demagogues - the accidents of geography like oil and hydro. Our ancestors in 1776 and 1812 fought for this land and in 1867 they made a country not for provincial administrators but for ALL Canadians to share.
This is literally revisionist history. This is not what the history books or historians say about how Canada was created, at all.
And yes, let's have a new constitution. The political elites didn't have the balls to out up the Charter for a referendum ratification, this time let's take it to the people.
It was taken to the people in 1992. A clear majority of Canadians in all regions rejected regional grievance politics and voted for a stronger central government.
They didn't have the opportunity to vote in 1867 or in 1982. Centralization was just brought down from up high.
If Canadians are so keen on centralization perhaps we should have a referendum on it?
There was a national vote in 1992 on constitutional amendments that would give more power to provinces. A large majority of Canadians voted against it. It would help if you read more history. These are also historical facts: Alberta is an administrative region of Canada. It had no independence prior to being created by Canada. The same is true of Quebec, and Ontario, and every other province. There is no sovereignty in Canada but the sovereignty of the people of Canada as represented in the Parliament of Canada. These are all legally tested and indisputable facts. No indigenous group has national sovereignty, no matter how they may claim otherwise. No factional movement in Alberta, funded by oil interests and aping MAGA, has sovereignty. No bigoted faction in Quebec or anywhere has sovereignty. In the peaceful democratic system that is Canada, the world’s most peaceful democracy ever, if a vast majority of Canadians voted to grant sovereignty to some existing part of Canada, so be it. I will bet you any amount that will never happen. In the meantime, no faction anywhere in Canada has a unilateral right to declare separation or sovereignty. Those are legal and historic facts. The rest of what separatists say is just rhetorical gas. The vast majority of Canadians are grateful for the peace and prosperity they enjoy. The separatists are ingrates who should at least be grateful that they are allowed to air their grievances, however irrational. Most democracies make it illegal to promote separation.
You make it sounds like separatism (and First Nations assertiveness) is predicated upon asking for permission. That isn't how this usually worked throughout history.
Separatism is usually "we are leaving and we dare you to do anything about it" type situation.
Remember, a court is only as good as it's ability to enforce its rulings.
As for 1992 referendum, that was generations ago now and it was a "take it or leave it" vote, not a ratification vote. The Charter was never ratified via referendum because they knew damn well it was elite driven and the regular folks would vote against it.
I’m not interested in separatism or reopening the constitution.
Your vision of a federal government that completely steamrolls regional expertise and priorities would cause both.
Woke refers to the state of artificial enlightenment that ensues when you ignore the molecular basis of the life you live, insist that technology that will replace it is manifest when it is not: I.e insist on things that are not true, and impose asymmetric costs on a region that knows those arguments are FOS.
But let’s be honest. You don’t seem to want to address any material points in the article or my post.
you simply wish to lord over the provinces and their concerns with ‘you should be grateful we could make this so much worse’.
If you want honesty, please stick to facts. Regional grievances were taken to the people in the 1992 referendum. A clear majority of Canadians in all regions rejected regional grievance politics and voted for a stronger central government. And your excuse for name-calling people as "woke" because they disagree with you is more word salad nonsense. What exactly does this mean: "Woke refers to the state of artificial enlightenment that ensues when you ignore the molecular basis of the life you live, insist that technology that will replace it is manifest when it is not: I.e insist on things that are not true, and impose asymmetric costs on a region that knows those arguments are FOS."
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.
Ottawa suffers from mission creep, mostly driven by vote chasing fundamentals. It makes absolutely no sense for a federal government to be in a "national" school lunch program. And yet the Provinces dutifully sign up to receive the funding, forgetting that there is a very high chance that the feds will choke off the financial support and leave others holding the bag.
In all fairness, all levels of government are straying far away from their core mandates. Toronto can provide a long list of core services that are in need of reform and improvement. Instead of working to make things better, Toronto is going into the GROCERY business.
We are governed by shallow minds who don't want to do the hard work of fixing messes, but always looking for new messes to ignore.
“Federalism is thus not a solution to our regional differences and divisions — it was never meant to be — but a recognition of them.”
America’s first Chief Justice, John Jay, offered a similar reflection, this time recognizing not difference but sameness. He observed:
“… I have … often taken notice, that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people; a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion …”
We can see the recognition, and embracing, of differences as a sort of balance or check on ourselves. A very real, yet largely unwritten set of checks and balances within Canada’s constitution.
Quebec, for example, with its different language and religion, causes other communities in Canada to think about things differently. This association similarly exposes Quebec to how others may also have different perspectives. The overall result of this association has generally been positive, now for over 350 years.
The dynamic from the various associations within Canada represents what, at one level may at first be seen as differences has revealed more that unites than what divides. We might do well to consider that this results reflects the benefits of strong Federal government.