"Liberals top-down view of federalism out of date
By Chantal Hébert, National Columnist, Toronto Star, Published 1 hour 19 minutes ago
If the Liberals are serious about reconnecting with Canada outside of Ontario, an end-of-year Supreme Court ruling on the defunct federal plan for a national securities regulator should command their attention in the lead-up to the weekend’s introspective policy convention. The Court unanimously nixed the federal initiative on the basis of constitutionality. The ruling put a spoke in the wheels of federal finance minister Jim Flaherty. In its wake, the plan for the creation of the financial watchdog agency has been shelved.
But the ruling’s implications extend beyond the management of the country’s economic union; they go to the heart of the Liberal approach to federalism. In its ruling, the court basically rejected the contention that the division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces — as set out by the Fathers of Confederation almost a century and a half ago — had failed to keep up with the times.
The court accepted the federal contention that the issue of securities had evolved into a concern for the entire country but it still concluded that “it is a fundamental principle of federalism that both federal and provincial powers must be respected, and one power may not be used in a manner that effectively eviscerates another.”
The argument of modernity is usually at the core of the case made by proponents of a national education policy or by those of a more hands-on federal role in social policy. Based on the Supreme Court ruling, unilaterally carving out a leading role for the federal government in provincial areas such as education will remain a pipe-dream. The door has effectively been bolted.
In the recent past, no governing party has overlooked the realities of the division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces when it suited its purpose quite as routinely as the federal Liberal party. In Liberal circles, what passes for federal leadership often amounts to a series of unsolicited interventions in provincial areas of responsibility.
Reading some Chrétien-era throne speeches, one might be forgiven for thinking the provinces did not exist. Under Paul Martin the same philosophy resulted, most notably in the creation of a now-defunct federal body devoted to “learning”. (Its deathbed salvo was a lengthy plea for a federal education framework.) There was also a failed federal attempt to deal directly with Canada’s big cities.
Ironically, over the Chrétien-Martin years, the social safety net was most significantly expanded in Quebec, with landmark provincial initiatives on the fronts of childcare, parental leave and pharmacare. And Alberta led the way to increased social spending. As it happens, those two provinces have traditionally guarded their constitutional sovereignty over social policy most jealously.
More so than anything else — including the sponsorship scandal and the National Energy Program — that top-down Liberal view of federalism accounts for the estrangement of the West and francophone Quebec from Canada’s former natural governing party. It is no accident that support for sovereignty has gone steadily down in Quebec over the past six Conservative years. Stephen Harper leads the least interventionist federal government in decades.
At their weekend convention, the Liberals will be asked to endorse a slew of back-to-the-future resolutions promoting so-called national strategies to deal with almost every issue under the sun. Outside the convention hall, such resolutions will predictably be greeted with a collective yawn. Over time, they have at best proven to be exercises in lofty rhetoric and — at worst — convenient cop-outs to avoid having to come up with actual policy ideas.
As the Supreme Court recently reminded parliamentarians, self-proclaimed federal leadership in provincial areas of jurisdictions leads to constitutional dead ends. And it is fortuitous that this reminder comes just in time for the latest round of the debate over the federal role in shaping medicare."
I would simply add this to the basket of interventions... Agriculture is a shared constitutional jurisdiction.
Provinces gave permission for the CWB 'single desk' in the 1940's.
Goodale hammered them back with the 'Trade and Commerce' sledge.
Now Ottawa has rescinded this hammer... grain marketing will be in the realm of supply management... just as Quebec has a 'single desk' wheat monopoly today.
It could easily have been argued that 'Trade and Commerce' legislation was never supposed to restrict trade in the first place.
The Liberals and ND's need to take a reality check on where the majority of Canadians are at! And how and why we got here!!!
Wall Street in the US... is a very good example of very BAD federal governance!!!
By Chantal Hébert, National Columnist, Toronto Star, Published 1 hour 19 minutes ago
If the Liberals are serious about reconnecting with Canada outside of Ontario, an end-of-year Supreme Court ruling on the defunct federal plan for a national securities regulator should command their attention in the lead-up to the weekend’s introspective policy convention. The Court unanimously nixed the federal initiative on the basis of constitutionality. The ruling put a spoke in the wheels of federal finance minister Jim Flaherty. In its wake, the plan for the creation of the financial watchdog agency has been shelved.
But the ruling’s implications extend beyond the management of the country’s economic union; they go to the heart of the Liberal approach to federalism. In its ruling, the court basically rejected the contention that the division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces — as set out by the Fathers of Confederation almost a century and a half ago — had failed to keep up with the times.
The court accepted the federal contention that the issue of securities had evolved into a concern for the entire country but it still concluded that “it is a fundamental principle of federalism that both federal and provincial powers must be respected, and one power may not be used in a manner that effectively eviscerates another.”
The argument of modernity is usually at the core of the case made by proponents of a national education policy or by those of a more hands-on federal role in social policy. Based on the Supreme Court ruling, unilaterally carving out a leading role for the federal government in provincial areas such as education will remain a pipe-dream. The door has effectively been bolted.
In the recent past, no governing party has overlooked the realities of the division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces when it suited its purpose quite as routinely as the federal Liberal party. In Liberal circles, what passes for federal leadership often amounts to a series of unsolicited interventions in provincial areas of responsibility.
Reading some Chrétien-era throne speeches, one might be forgiven for thinking the provinces did not exist. Under Paul Martin the same philosophy resulted, most notably in the creation of a now-defunct federal body devoted to “learning”. (Its deathbed salvo was a lengthy plea for a federal education framework.) There was also a failed federal attempt to deal directly with Canada’s big cities.
Ironically, over the Chrétien-Martin years, the social safety net was most significantly expanded in Quebec, with landmark provincial initiatives on the fronts of childcare, parental leave and pharmacare. And Alberta led the way to increased social spending. As it happens, those two provinces have traditionally guarded their constitutional sovereignty over social policy most jealously.
More so than anything else — including the sponsorship scandal and the National Energy Program — that top-down Liberal view of federalism accounts for the estrangement of the West and francophone Quebec from Canada’s former natural governing party. It is no accident that support for sovereignty has gone steadily down in Quebec over the past six Conservative years. Stephen Harper leads the least interventionist federal government in decades.
At their weekend convention, the Liberals will be asked to endorse a slew of back-to-the-future resolutions promoting so-called national strategies to deal with almost every issue under the sun. Outside the convention hall, such resolutions will predictably be greeted with a collective yawn. Over time, they have at best proven to be exercises in lofty rhetoric and — at worst — convenient cop-outs to avoid having to come up with actual policy ideas.
As the Supreme Court recently reminded parliamentarians, self-proclaimed federal leadership in provincial areas of jurisdictions leads to constitutional dead ends. And it is fortuitous that this reminder comes just in time for the latest round of the debate over the federal role in shaping medicare."
I would simply add this to the basket of interventions... Agriculture is a shared constitutional jurisdiction.
Provinces gave permission for the CWB 'single desk' in the 1940's.
Goodale hammered them back with the 'Trade and Commerce' sledge.
Now Ottawa has rescinded this hammer... grain marketing will be in the realm of supply management... just as Quebec has a 'single desk' wheat monopoly today.
It could easily have been argued that 'Trade and Commerce' legislation was never supposed to restrict trade in the first place.
The Liberals and ND's need to take a reality check on where the majority of Canadians are at! And how and why we got here!!!
Wall Street in the US... is a very good example of very BAD federal governance!!!
Comment