We should never try to emulate the EU, this bloated, bureaucratic mess that can't get out of its own shadow and is increasingly becoming more authoritarian.
The idea we should steal is what came before the EU, the EEC, which was the common market, border and tariff-free trade organization that helped Europe recover after the war.
That was a resounding success and I can see how we have much work to do to establish a similar framework within our own country.
For example, an Ontario-licensed architect cannot own an architecture firm in Quebec, at least not be a majority owner. This shouldn't exist within a single country.
Love this idea. Brilliant. Also something small-c conservatives and small-l liberals should, in theory, be able to get behind. It would strength the country's economy, would likely improve inter-provincial relations, would give us better options in negotiating international relations (especially economic ones) and would likely lead to better national defence. In short: it would mean Canada would at last grow up as a country.
Canada joining the EU is a halfwit idea hatched in a halfwit mind. EU is a bloated bureaucratic mess and is fast degenerating into a dictatorship of unelected unaccountable bureaucrats. Canada, anyone ? Unless it reforms, it will become like UN.
The EU has been incredibly weak at exercising traditional sovereign powers related to the military or finances, largely because member nations and their citizens have paid attention and resisted usurpations of national sovereignty. Instead, the EU has been most active in areas where there isn't a lot of public visibility, particularly regulations. The effect has been like Gulliver getting tied down by the Lilliputians, with a web of regulation sapping sovereignty and forming a somewhat unaccountable layer of bureaucracy that permeates public life.
Yes, an EU citizen has labour mobility. However, it has an increasingly sclerotic economy due to the stifling web of regulation. I'm not an opponent of regulation - done right, it makes an important contribution to public safety. It can actually make life easier for companies by helping them assure their products are fit for use, and also providing a clear path for getting them approved by authorities. However, going over the new and complex EU regulation for packaging recyclability, one of my co-workers quipped "Now I totally understand Brexit."
I wonder how the EU handles the multiple languages they deal with? We only have two and it creates so many barriers! Just labelling new products! Translation costs. And don’t get me started on the inevitable requirement that all parties to this new group would HAVE to be French/English bilingual. Ugh.
They don't. There is no language or labeling requirements as far as I know at the EU level. Each country manages as they fit.
English is the de facto common language and people live with it. Within each country you'll see only the local language, except for multi-lingual countries like Belgium or Switzerland.
The idea that we need to mandate multiple languages from the top down is flawed to begin with.
Nations have for thousands of years dealt with this issue without the need for laws about it. I'd argue that Canada is worse off as a result, instead of letting people peacefully decide amongst themselves how to deal with language barriers.
Thank you both for this. I think it's a very interesting idea, and in a way I'm somewhat surprised we don't have such a body already...it seems like such a logical thing to do. Our siloed status presently is far more effective at creating roadblocks than anything else (other than inter-provincial squabbles--it's good at that too.)
We are all products of our history, Europe included, so I see no reason to fear replicating any of their negative experiences. Better contact means better communication.
I must say, too, it's a real pleasure to read a positive, imaginative piece of work. At the federal level we appear to be willing to experiment with new approaches and this is a good contribution to that discussion. I think new and interesting ideas should be given thoughtful consideration, rather than being strangled at birth.
I sometimes wonder how Canada would work as 13 independent entities with more cooperative trade agreements among them. The federal government weighs us down both financially and bureaucratically.
It's an interesting idea, but would only last until the federal government of the day decides the provinces have too much control in such a scenario.
As a random recent example, the Trudeau government would have seen no use for such a body, as they viewed the world very narrowly - judging themselves and their own ideas to be above reproach, and all ideas originating elsewhere as deeply suspect.
The EU is also a cautionary tale. We forget about the problems caused by the unbalance budgets of the PIGS ( Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain ), the degree to which refugees weighed on their social programs, Brexit, etc.
European countries are mostly of a size where cultural, linguistic, and economic characteristics are common across the population. Where they are not, such as Turkey, it results in friction. In Canada and the US this is the cause of federal/ state/ provincial unrest but in the world there are examples of civil war and other armed stand offs.
Integration of markets across Canada is great for the most part but it will have a hard time competing with a US market that is 10 times the size of ours and, in most cases, much closer geographically. I would rather see our access to the US go back to what it was a few decades ago.
However, at the risk of seeming churlish, I admit to having been somewhat puzzled by the following statement:
QUOTE
Ultimately, the solution is not to shift power from provinces to the federal government; that is both undesirable and politically unfeasible.
END QUOTE
Surely it would have been helpful to write another paragraph to explain, in brief, the rationale for such analysis?
I understand that you “hinted” at the reasons why elsewhere in your essay. Nonetheless, I think you owe your readers (and yourselves) more.
Finally, I would observe, perhaps uncharitably, that I worry about our premiers’ tendency to emulate (unconsciously, of course) Hungary’s Victor Orban…
It would be a logical, and worthwhile best next step.
There are a multitude of F/P/T "tables" dealing with specific areas but as noted they lack focus, a consist mandate, and operating protocols. The bones are there, it's time to tie them together.
We should never try to emulate the EU, this bloated, bureaucratic mess that can't get out of its own shadow and is increasingly becoming more authoritarian.
The idea we should steal is what came before the EU, the EEC, which was the common market, border and tariff-free trade organization that helped Europe recover after the war.
That was a resounding success and I can see how we have much work to do to establish a similar framework within our own country.
For example, an Ontario-licensed architect cannot own an architecture firm in Quebec, at least not be a majority owner. This shouldn't exist within a single country.
Love this idea. Brilliant. Also something small-c conservatives and small-l liberals should, in theory, be able to get behind. It would strength the country's economy, would likely improve inter-provincial relations, would give us better options in negotiating international relations (especially economic ones) and would likely lead to better national defence. In short: it would mean Canada would at last grow up as a country.
Canada joining the EU is a halfwit idea hatched in a halfwit mind. EU is a bloated bureaucratic mess and is fast degenerating into a dictatorship of unelected unaccountable bureaucrats. Canada, anyone ? Unless it reforms, it will become like UN.
The EU has been incredibly weak at exercising traditional sovereign powers related to the military or finances, largely because member nations and their citizens have paid attention and resisted usurpations of national sovereignty. Instead, the EU has been most active in areas where there isn't a lot of public visibility, particularly regulations. The effect has been like Gulliver getting tied down by the Lilliputians, with a web of regulation sapping sovereignty and forming a somewhat unaccountable layer of bureaucracy that permeates public life.
Yes, an EU citizen has labour mobility. However, it has an increasingly sclerotic economy due to the stifling web of regulation. I'm not an opponent of regulation - done right, it makes an important contribution to public safety. It can actually make life easier for companies by helping them assure their products are fit for use, and also providing a clear path for getting them approved by authorities. However, going over the new and complex EU regulation for packaging recyclability, one of my co-workers quipped "Now I totally understand Brexit."
I wonder how the EU handles the multiple languages they deal with? We only have two and it creates so many barriers! Just labelling new products! Translation costs. And don’t get me started on the inevitable requirement that all parties to this new group would HAVE to be French/English bilingual. Ugh.
They don't. There is no language or labeling requirements as far as I know at the EU level. Each country manages as they fit.
English is the de facto common language and people live with it. Within each country you'll see only the local language, except for multi-lingual countries like Belgium or Switzerland.
The idea that we need to mandate multiple languages from the top down is flawed to begin with.
Nations have for thousands of years dealt with this issue without the need for laws about it. I'd argue that Canada is worse off as a result, instead of letting people peacefully decide amongst themselves how to deal with language barriers.
Thank you both for this. I think it's a very interesting idea, and in a way I'm somewhat surprised we don't have such a body already...it seems like such a logical thing to do. Our siloed status presently is far more effective at creating roadblocks than anything else (other than inter-provincial squabbles--it's good at that too.)
We are all products of our history, Europe included, so I see no reason to fear replicating any of their negative experiences. Better contact means better communication.
I must say, too, it's a real pleasure to read a positive, imaginative piece of work. At the federal level we appear to be willing to experiment with new approaches and this is a good contribution to that discussion. I think new and interesting ideas should be given thoughtful consideration, rather than being strangled at birth.
If we had such a body, it would be based in Ontario/Quebec, so no thank you.
I sometimes wonder how Canada would work as 13 independent entities with more cooperative trade agreements among them. The federal government weighs us down both financially and bureaucratically.
It's an interesting idea, but would only last until the federal government of the day decides the provinces have too much control in such a scenario.
As a random recent example, the Trudeau government would have seen no use for such a body, as they viewed the world very narrowly - judging themselves and their own ideas to be above reproach, and all ideas originating elsewhere as deeply suspect.
The EU is also a cautionary tale. We forget about the problems caused by the unbalance budgets of the PIGS ( Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain ), the degree to which refugees weighed on their social programs, Brexit, etc.
European countries are mostly of a size where cultural, linguistic, and economic characteristics are common across the population. Where they are not, such as Turkey, it results in friction. In Canada and the US this is the cause of federal/ state/ provincial unrest but in the world there are examples of civil war and other armed stand offs.
Integration of markets across Canada is great for the most part but it will have a hard time competing with a US market that is 10 times the size of ours and, in most cases, much closer geographically. I would rather see our access to the US go back to what it was a few decades ago.
Thank you for this thought-provoking discussion.
However, at the risk of seeming churlish, I admit to having been somewhat puzzled by the following statement:
QUOTE
Ultimately, the solution is not to shift power from provinces to the federal government; that is both undesirable and politically unfeasible.
END QUOTE
Surely it would have been helpful to write another paragraph to explain, in brief, the rationale for such analysis?
I understand that you “hinted” at the reasons why elsewhere in your essay. Nonetheless, I think you owe your readers (and yourselves) more.
Finally, I would observe, perhaps uncharitably, that I worry about our premiers’ tendency to emulate (unconsciously, of course) Hungary’s Victor Orban…
It would be a logical, and worthwhile best next step.
There are a multitude of F/P/T "tables" dealing with specific areas but as noted they lack focus, a consist mandate, and operating protocols. The bones are there, it's time to tie them together.