Canada as we knew it
Ted Byfield - Monday,27 March 2006
Western Standard
The Toronto establishment--as reflected in its house organ, The Globe and Mail--seems distinctly nervous these days. The Globe supported Stephen Harper in the January election, but very conditionally. He must not do anything rash, said the Globe. He must not disturb "Canada as we know it."
Now, "Canada as we know it" consists of two provinces and three cities. The provinces are Ontario and Quebec, and the cities are Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. Everything else is known as "the Regions," whose function is to remain quaint, beautiful, rustic, ignorant and poor.
In this way, "Canada as we know it" avoids what it sees as the tragic development of the United States, where leadership and wealth have been diffused around the whole country--with New York the financial centre, New England and now the South the manufacturing centres, Los Angeles the entertainment centre, California's "Silicon Valley" the technological centre, Seattle the aerospace centre, Pittsburgh the steel centre, and so on.
In "Canada as we know it," these things, and of course, the wealth that goes with them, centre in Toronto and Montreal and are governed from Ottawa. If you want to succeed, therefore, you must leave "the Regions" and move to one of the three cities where everything is decided. This is the Canada the Globe works vigilantly to preserve.
But why was the development of the United States so different, while the economic and cultural backgrounds of the two countries are so much the same? It's because their political backgrounds are not the same. The Americans fought for their independence; we had ours handed to us. People who have to fight get smarter. The smaller states immediately realized that if big populations determined governmental policy, their interests would inevitably be subverted. So they insisted that there be two legislative chambers, one based on population, while in the other, the Senate, each state would be equally represented. The outcome is what you see today.
We, too, created a Senate, ostensibly to protect the interests of our "regions." But since it was appointed by the same government it was supposed to critique and oppose, it became a farce, possessing great powers it rarely used because it always knew it lacked electoral legitimacy. Thus the Commons controlled what happened, and Ontario and Quebec with their big populations controlled the Commons. The outcome: "Canada as we know it."
Last week, Prime Minister Harper said he'd fulfill his promise to appoint only elected senators. Though his first Senate appointment was on the old patronage basis, that senator would be expected to resign and run for a Commons seat. Five Senate seats are now open--two in Ontario and one each in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. A half-dozen more will fall vacant in the next two years. If the provinces don't hold Senate elections with their provincial elections, he said, he would call Senate elections with the next federal one.
At this, the Globe went ape, condemning what Harper was doing as a dire threat to the established process of Canadian government. The Globe accurately discerns that an elected Senate would work vast changes. It could hold up or defeat government bills, force cabinet ministers and top bureaucrats to publicly negotiate and amend their plans--all routine in the American system. In short, it would introduce a new element of "democracy." The passage of legislation would no longer be the rubber-stamp process that brought into being "Canada as we know it."
It's worth noting how this unusual situation arose. It began years ago when the cowboys found oil in Alberta. Year after year, they trudged down to Toronto looking for money to develop it. Always, they were told to go home and behave like proper regionalists. But they didn't go home. They went to Houston, found the money, developed the industry, and today a distinctly un-Canadian wealth has accrued to one of "the Regions." The demand for Senate reform came from Alberta, and Steve Harper came from Alberta. Maybe he will actually change things. Maybe, one hopes, this will begin the end of "Canada as we know it."
Ted Byfield - Monday,27 March 2006
Western Standard
The Toronto establishment--as reflected in its house organ, The Globe and Mail--seems distinctly nervous these days. The Globe supported Stephen Harper in the January election, but very conditionally. He must not do anything rash, said the Globe. He must not disturb "Canada as we know it."
Now, "Canada as we know it" consists of two provinces and three cities. The provinces are Ontario and Quebec, and the cities are Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. Everything else is known as "the Regions," whose function is to remain quaint, beautiful, rustic, ignorant and poor.
In this way, "Canada as we know it" avoids what it sees as the tragic development of the United States, where leadership and wealth have been diffused around the whole country--with New York the financial centre, New England and now the South the manufacturing centres, Los Angeles the entertainment centre, California's "Silicon Valley" the technological centre, Seattle the aerospace centre, Pittsburgh the steel centre, and so on.
In "Canada as we know it," these things, and of course, the wealth that goes with them, centre in Toronto and Montreal and are governed from Ottawa. If you want to succeed, therefore, you must leave "the Regions" and move to one of the three cities where everything is decided. This is the Canada the Globe works vigilantly to preserve.
But why was the development of the United States so different, while the economic and cultural backgrounds of the two countries are so much the same? It's because their political backgrounds are not the same. The Americans fought for their independence; we had ours handed to us. People who have to fight get smarter. The smaller states immediately realized that if big populations determined governmental policy, their interests would inevitably be subverted. So they insisted that there be two legislative chambers, one based on population, while in the other, the Senate, each state would be equally represented. The outcome is what you see today.
We, too, created a Senate, ostensibly to protect the interests of our "regions." But since it was appointed by the same government it was supposed to critique and oppose, it became a farce, possessing great powers it rarely used because it always knew it lacked electoral legitimacy. Thus the Commons controlled what happened, and Ontario and Quebec with their big populations controlled the Commons. The outcome: "Canada as we know it."
Last week, Prime Minister Harper said he'd fulfill his promise to appoint only elected senators. Though his first Senate appointment was on the old patronage basis, that senator would be expected to resign and run for a Commons seat. Five Senate seats are now open--two in Ontario and one each in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. A half-dozen more will fall vacant in the next two years. If the provinces don't hold Senate elections with their provincial elections, he said, he would call Senate elections with the next federal one.
At this, the Globe went ape, condemning what Harper was doing as a dire threat to the established process of Canadian government. The Globe accurately discerns that an elected Senate would work vast changes. It could hold up or defeat government bills, force cabinet ministers and top bureaucrats to publicly negotiate and amend their plans--all routine in the American system. In short, it would introduce a new element of "democracy." The passage of legislation would no longer be the rubber-stamp process that brought into being "Canada as we know it."
It's worth noting how this unusual situation arose. It began years ago when the cowboys found oil in Alberta. Year after year, they trudged down to Toronto looking for money to develop it. Always, they were told to go home and behave like proper regionalists. But they didn't go home. They went to Houston, found the money, developed the industry, and today a distinctly un-Canadian wealth has accrued to one of "the Regions." The demand for Senate reform came from Alberta, and Steve Harper came from Alberta. Maybe he will actually change things. Maybe, one hopes, this will begin the end of "Canada as we know it."
Comment