[Khar]

I would tend to agree with both Thanos and CommanderSock. In large part, I agree with them because the needs of Alberta, BC, Quebec and PEI are incredibly different, and should be approached separately. Having these provincial rights which allows these provinces the mobility to act in their own jurisdiction allows for those provinces to correct for regional issues without having to pass it by the Federal government first.

Having lived in London and having lived in Calgary/Edmonton, I’ve grown to have a very different view of this topic. In Ontario, I find that more often than not, those who are not living in Toronto tend to get screwed to support those in Toronto, and this opinion is certainly not limited to me. In a way, if more power goes to the Federal government, I’d expect problems to appear for parts of the country to favour other parts of the nation. Thanos brought up an older example, but we only have to look back to Dion’s carbon tax plan, which would have crippled Alberta in favour of other provinces getting the tax revenues put into them.

I think that this article all too quickly jumps the gun in how it looks at the situation. If we have “Little Canada” issues, they are formed more around problems like asymmetric federalism in the form of Quebec’s demands for sovereignty, lack of representation for growing parts of Canada in comparison to others, and demands from the Native communities for continued use of improved benefits above what are received by other Canadians. Stresses such as Caledonia and the stresses on the public system because of the demands of bilingualism have done damage across Canada in various similar situations. Quebec is allowed to get away with a lot more than what other provinces are allowed to, and I feel that this article skates over these problems.

My personal problem is that in such a system where the provinces begin losing their autonomy, those regions not only lose the ability to respond proactively and efficiently to stresses but it also places them under the sway of people who do not have vested interests in the promotion of the welfare of those people equal or above their own. For example, the Liberals typically hold power because of Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto. Would we see a concerted effort to oppose certain accords on the Oil fields of Alberta or growth in some parts of the Maritimes? Yes! Would we see similar actions which were described in the article under a system with more Federal control? Yes! The problem is not the fact that we are a province; the problem is that the Maritimes will continue to get screwed and Alberta will continue to fight and oppose the same groups which are fighting Alberta now.

There are also some imprecise parallels used. For example, the part discussing the energy economy. Unfortunately, humanity has yet to perfect 100% efficient energy transfer. Shortfalls in some provinces could be corrected by other provinces, sure, but many of those are already being done, like energy being sent from Alberta to BC. Excess is sent south because they can get more money and hence, better welfare for Canadians in general . Not only would there likely be less when it made it across the country, but it could also be less competitive compared to local sources and they might make less money. Money which does end up driving the economy of another part of Canada, and which has played a role in the increase in money for the federal government and, as the second article pointed out, a general improvement in the Canadian economy. It’s entirely possible that exporting money in from the States may be cheaper than having it brought across Canada. Does this fix the problem being experienced in the Quebec vs. Maritimes example? Certainly not. Does removing provincial powers improve that? Probably not. The problem in that case is that Quebec has an inordinate amount of sway at the Federal level. Trying to remove regional rights in an attempt to remove Quebec’s hold won’t work.

The fact is that Quebec has more power already. The question is to ask why. Not to point fingers at Federalism. The fact is that Alberta has become a powerhouse in the Canadian economy. People wonder at the sometimes antagonistic profile presented by Alberta. The question is to ask why. Not point fingers at Federalism. The fact is that we have all these problems with parochialism in the form of Native groups and Quebec getting an inordinate amount of rights to act at a Federal level. The question is to ask why. Not point fingers at Federalism.

Each region is intrinsically different from each other region. They have different wants and needs, and limited resources to meet them. The North has a small population with different needs than those living in New Brunswick, who have different needs from those living in the St. Lawrence Lowlands or Northern British Columbia. I’m not going to assume we have the best mix now, but I think that this author is ignoring far too much of the “problems” with parochialism. Canada is massive. This is why we have regional governance. Canada is diverse. This is why we have regional governance. Different parts of Canada grow and wither. This is why we have regional governance.

It’s funny that the author brought up exactly the things which need to be different in different environments. Edmonton needs different medical needs than Burnaby. Problems present in the Okanagan are not present in Halifax. Demographics are different between London and Winnipeg. These are reflected in differing health plans.

Environmental plans are difficult on the national level. People in the Prairies need access to a great deal of energy for heating their homes in long, cold winters. People in Southern Ontario need power for their air conditioning in sweltering summers. BC doesn’t need either of these things to the same degree, nor do the Maritimes to some degree. Hearing calls from these regions for a national environmental plan ring hollow. The residents there do not represent the needs of the various portions of Canada. A reduction in the use of natural gas in Canada in a line nation-wide means a lot more for those of us in Alberta then for those in Ontario. Likewise, a reduction in the use of energy for air conditioners would raise wails from those living within heat island range of Toronto. This is made all the worse when the deaths in both regions set in, as has happened in major cities across the world where inadequate resources, even in the first world, could not be allocated. People have died in droves because of heat stroke when Paris loses power. This is a more extreme remark, but it’s just an example. Southern Ontario would suffer because of some farming restrictions, but not as much as the bread basket of Canada. Logging restriction demands from the Prairies or the Maritimes would kill the rest of the provinces.

The article recognizes this, but not enough, in my opinion. The article notices problems, but misplaces the blame a bit too much and ignores what else could be causing it. Canada’s west is growing. Quebec is growling. Natives are concerned. It’s going to cause growing pains. It’s better to find out the why than to leap directly into the how, in my opinion. I prefer my smaller, efficent acts. Not sweeping ones which have less real effectiveness. As I said previously, in my view, the problem is not that we have regions duking it out, the problems come in the form of assymetric federalism, and misrepresentation that allows a lot of these problems to be exacerbated, or grow, or even begin in the first place.

[Arctic_Menace]

Thanos wrote:

If a 'Little Canada' attitude is what's needed to keep provincial rights intact, to prevent things like a virtual ass-raping courtesy of Big Canada programs like the National Energy Program from continually being shoved onto the provinces by Ottawa, then long live Little Canada. I have no interest in interfering in other provinces balliwicks as long as they, (a) don't diminish my rights as a citizen, or (b) don't cost me any extra tax money on things that aren't going to benefit me and mine. This is why I complain very little about what Quebec does inside their own borders. I don't live there, it doesn't affect me personally, and they have every provincial sovereign right to govern their own jurisdiction as they see fit.

Big Canada is just another way of saying that the vision of the Liberals and Dippers is the only acceptable one for the entire country, as if Toronto (and that's who this column is really directed at and for anyway) still has some sort of cosmic prerogative and overwhelming right to dictate everything, down to the smallest of the fine print, to everyone else about everything else. Screw that, and may the much better and much more just anti-centralization vision of the founders of Confederation prevail for as long as Canada exists.

Aaaaaand..... YOU just proved you're part of the problem and ignorant of our own history.

1) Big Canada, as was shown in the article, would lead to us being a far better, organized, competative and UNIFIED country.

2) Where is Toronto even mentioned or insuated in this article? Where are you getting that?

3) As for the Fathers of Confederation, the decentralization of the US, which in time contributed to the Civil War popping up, led John A. MacDonald to firmly belief in a strongly centralized state(you can find him saying this in history books and selected quotes), with much of the power lying in Otawa's hands.

[Arctic_Menace]

Khar wrote:

I would tend to agree with both Thanos and CommanderSock. In large part, I agree with them because the needs of Alberta, BC, Quebec and PEI are incredibly different, and should be approached separately. Having these provincial rights which allows these provinces the mobility to act in their own jurisdiction allows for those provinces to correct for regional issues without having to pass it by the Federal government first.

Having lived in London and having lived in Calgary/Edmonton, I’ve grown to have a very different view of this topic. In Ontario, I find that more often than not, those who are not living in Toronto tend to get screwed to support those in Toronto, and this opinion is certainly not limited to me. In a way, if more power goes to the Federal government, I’d expect problems to appear for parts of the country to favour other parts of the nation. Thanos brought up an older example, but we only have to look back to Dion’s carbon tax plan, which would have crippled Alberta in favour of other provinces getting the tax revenues put into them.

I think that this article all too quickly jumps the gun in how it looks at the situation. If we have “Little Canada” issues, they are formed more around problems like asymmetric federalism in the form of Quebec’s demands for sovereignty, lack of representation for growing parts of Canada in comparison to others, and demands from the Native communities for continued use of improved benefits above what are received by other Canadians. Stresses such as Caledonia and the stresses on the public system because of the demands of bilingualism have done damage across Canada in various similar situations. Quebec is allowed to get away with a lot more than what other provinces are allowed to, and I feel that this article skates over these problems.

My personal problem is that in such a system where the provinces begin losing their autonomy, those regions not only lose the ability to respond proactively and efficiently to stresses but it also places them under the sway of people who do not have vested interests in the promotion of the welfare of those people equal or above their own. For example, the Liberals typically hold power because of Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto. Would we see a concerted effort to oppose certain accords on the Oil fields of Alberta or growth in some parts of the Maritimes? Yes! Would we see similar actions which were described in the article under a system with more Federal control? Yes! The problem is not the fact that we are a province; the problem is that the Maritimes will continue to get screwed and Alberta will continue to fight and oppose the same groups which are fighting Alberta now.

There are also some imprecise parallels used. For example, the part discussing the energy economy. Unfortunately, humanity has yet to perfect 100% efficient energy transfer. Shortfalls in some provinces could be corrected by other provinces, sure, but many of those are already being done, like energy being sent from Alberta to BC. Excess is sent south because they can get more money and hence, better welfare for Canadians in general . Not only would there likely be less when it made it across the country, but it could also be less competitive compared to local sources and they might make less money. Money which does end up driving the economy of another part of Canada, and which has played a role in the increase in money for the federal government and, as the second article pointed out, a general improvement in the Canadian economy. It’s entirely possible that exporting money in from the States may be cheaper than having it brought across Canada. Does this fix the problem being experienced in the Quebec vs. Maritimes example? Certainly not. Does removing provincial powers improve that? Probably not. The problem in that case is that Quebec has an inordinate amount of sway at the Federal level. Trying to remove regional rights in an attempt to remove Quebec’s hold won’t work.

The fact is that Quebec has more power already. The question is to ask why. Not to point fingers at Federalism. The fact is that Alberta has become a powerhouse in the Canadian economy. People wonder at the sometimes antagonistic profile presented by Alberta. The question is to ask why. Not point fingers at Federalism. The fact is that we have all these problems with parochialism in the form of Native groups and Quebec getting an inordinate amount of rights to act at a Federal level. The question is to ask why. Not point fingers at Federalism.

Each region is intrinsically different from each other region. They have different wants and needs, and limited resources to meet them. The North has a small population with different needs than those living in New Brunswick, who have different needs from those living in the St. Lawrence Lowlands or Northern British Columbia. I’m not going to assume we have the best mix now, but I think that this author is ignoring far too much of the “problems” with parochialism. Canada is massive. This is why we have regional governance. Canada is diverse. This is why we have regional governance. Different parts of Canada grow and wither. This is why we have regional governance.

It’s funny that the author brought up exactly the things which need to be different in different environments. Edmonton needs different medical needs than Burnaby. Problems present in the Okanagan are not present in Halifax. Demographics are different between London and Winnipeg. These are reflected in differing health plans.

Environmental plans are difficult on the national level. People in the Prairies need access to a great deal of energy for heating their homes in long, cold winters. People in Southern Ontario need power for their air conditioning in sweltering summers. BC doesn’t need either of these things to the same degree, nor do the Maritimes to some degree. Hearing calls from these regions for a national environmental plan ring hollow. The residents there do not represent the needs of the various portions of Canada. A reduction in the use of natural gas in Canada in a line nation-wide means a lot more for those of us in Alberta then for those in Ontario. Likewise, a reduction in the use of energy for air conditioners would raise wails from those living within heat island range of Toronto. This is made all the worse when the deaths in both regions set in, as has happened in major cities across the world where inadequate resources, even in the first world, could not be allocated. People have died in droves because of heat stroke when Paris loses power. This is a more extreme remark, but it’s just an example. Southern Ontario would suffer because of some farming restrictions, but not as much as the bread basket of Canada. Logging restriction demands from the Prairies or the Maritimes would kill the rest of the provinces.

The article recognizes this, but not enough, in my opinion. The article notices problems, but misplaces the blame a bit too much and ignores what else could be causing it. Canada’s west is growing. Quebec is growling. Natives are concerned. It’s going to cause growing pains. It’s better to find out the why than to leap directly into the how, in my opinion. I prefer my smaller, efficent acts. Not sweeping ones which have less real effectiveness. As I said previously, in my view, the problem is not that we have regions duking it out, the problems come in the form of assymetric federalism, and misrepresentation that allows a lot of these problems to be exacerbated, or grow, or even begin in the first place.

I initially had typed up a far more detailed and paragraph by paragraph counter-argument to yours, but since my computer decided to screw me over and refresh the page and fuck up my internet, I'll be far more concise.

The article is not calling for increased federal oversight; it's calling for the provinces to work closer together, trade more with each other, ease the flow of goods and resources between provinces, to not act so selfishly or feel persecuted all the time, and to try and explore various options that work to everyone's advantage on several levels. It's not calling for the removal of provincial control over itself.

[martin14]

A strong Central Canadian government.

What a great idea, something to really work towards.


Sadly, wont happen anytime soon.

[kenmore]

And now Ottawa has given Québec the right to draft its own constitution.
Like I have said many times harper is a closet separatist.

[Khar]

Quote:

The article is not calling for increased federal oversight; it's calling for the provinces to work closer together, trade more with each other, ease the flow of goods and resources between provinces, to not act so selfishly or feel persecuted all the time, and to try and explore various options that work to everyone's advantage on several levels. It's not calling for the removal of provincial control over itself.

The article, as I read it, remarked on cases such as Quebec where limited control from the Federal government caused the problem, and lamented on it more than once in the case of the dispute with the Maritimes. It remarks on the lack of Federal initiatives in regards to climate control or health care. It most certainly is calling for increased federal oversight and a reduction of provincial control, whether anyone would prefer them to accept it or force it on them. At least, this is how I read it. Perhaps I am reading too deep into the article, but hearing the words parochialism and then seeing the rationalization provided from the article certainly did not set well with me.

The article smacks of faceless altruism to me, but again, that may just be me. The man did not present an example which was great, the energy industry. He felt that it would be better if it all stayed within the country, as if it would somehow be cheaper than bringing it across international borders under a Free Trade Agreement. It does not help that provinces such as Ontario now have agreements which restrict their use of energy from places like Alberta anyways. There are so many factors which explain the energy industries movement towards cross-border trade and how this is good for Canada that this smacks more of a call for protectionism instead of unity. Keep in mind that this is the sort of sounds heard by the Obama administation right before they enacted protectionism via "Buy American." Some companies and, by extension, regions and, by extenion, the American economy sufferred because they could not get goods at affordable prices, and people sufferred because they had to pay more. Likewise, Canada ended up getting screwed over by this.

Just because it sounds good doesn't mean it's going to be good. Canada is a diverse nation, and a broad one geographically. This article references factors which are directly impacted by this and grumbles over the fact that they are different. All at once, it ignores the real problems of parochialism in this country in favour of the ones regarding Alberta and Quebec and ineffectively brings up relevant problems present between provinces. It ignores the present amount of intercommunication and support which goes on between provinces, as if the only thing connecting them is powered at the Federal level.

For the record, I certainly do not blame those in the West for feeling persecuted, nor do I blame the problem on people being "selfish." I think the West has been boned in the past, and I think that selfish is an overused word only ever used to make everyday activities seem bad. If a province can service it's people by getting goods from a cheaper source, power to them. It improves that province's economy and the welfare of the people. If we are forced to buy stuff from another source in Canada which is far more expensive, we are supporting an industry which is uneconomical. It's deadweight loss for the system, and is worse off for Canada, even that region we eventually by from. Selfish means efficient. Selfish means economical. Selfish means a lack of faceless sacrifice where sacrifice is not necessary. If selfish is good for the low income people living in a province, go for it.

If the problem in the Maritimes is that Quebec is blocking it, do you honestly think that it will stop? Even with calls such as these? These calls have been going on for years. I feel that the situation here falls much more along the problems I feel they are than the ones provided by the article. Quebec gets a lot more out of Canada than other provinces, and it's clearly seen here. It's part of the assymetric federalism I mentioned. I feel the problems in our nation arise more often out of that, and the degree of attention paid to groups like the Natives, rather than on the backs of each province.

[Proculation]

Personnaly, I prefer a decentralized Canada than a centralized one where decisions are taken at the federal level. Just look at how the federal government in the USA is going bigger and bigger. That's scary and not what we should be heading towards.

The reality in B.C. is not the same than in Manitoba. Trying to centralize the powers will only bring more conflicts between provinces. Don't tell me that Trudeau united the country !!

[Thanos]

Some degree of centralization is essential, of course. It's just when it's Liberal Party version of massive power concentration being advanced that I start to get worried. It was when both the Feds and provinces began to abandon the power separation principles that Confederation envisioned that things started to get way too combative and hostile within Canadian domestic politics.

I'd hate to be the proponent of the federal vision in the United States. It'd be like herding cats when dealing with the states. Of course, unfortunately, it'd be like herding cats that are toting around AR-15's, nooses, and burning crosses, especially when dealing with the whackjobs from the Red States.