![[small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WGczmWu7Wwc/SdCJyy2LN1I/AAAAAAAABWE/ABYCkbJaKaQ/s1600/small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg)
It's not like they all agreed anyways.
I was all ready writing on Maxime Bernier’s new crazy “pro-constitution” rant about getting the government out of provincial transfers, when I see Robert Silver beat me to it (the bugger). He’s put the issue quite squarely on the table, wherein, if we want to interpret the Constitution Act of 1867 into literal usage, then the Prime Minister can choose, if he so wishes, to co-opt any legislation the provinces pass. We would be giving powers back to the Governor General that are not actually underwritten, and we would bring back more federal powers then I think Bernier would ever want to. However, we all know he doesn’t want this. He wants smaller government, as do most conservatives. I will say this, however. I feel that this discussion is one we should be having and I’m glad to see a discussion being brought about without scandal, secrecy or top down, authoritarian action.
Here’s my take on it, for better or worse. The federal government’s job is to make sure that our social institutions are safeguarded from the market. The Federal government should strongly regulate health care and education, as well as old age pensions and possibly even a police force (I may be wavering on this last point). Provinces, though, should be allowed their own jurisdiction to use these money’s as they see fit. The provinces know how best to spend this money, and I don’t think many federal MP’s would disagree. However, just disengaging the feds completely is a scary proposition. By pulling out of this direct relationship all we end up doing is giving over complete control to provinces whom should not be allowed unfettered control. We need a strong federal government that can lookout for the best interests of all Canadians. Of course, we know that Bernier supports private health care, so this suggestion that we just stop transfers all together isn’t at all surprising. I cannot help but wonder if this is actually his idea or a Harper plant to test the grounds on this issue and see if it has weight. As of yet, I have not caught wind of much yet, but maybe when the parliament returns we will hear more.
Trudeau warned about this when he said,
Canada is seen to some as a confederation of shopping centres.
And that’s exactly what Harper wants. His vision is
that Ottawa concern itself only with currency, passports,
defense, immigration and several other areas. In other
words, let the provinces do as they see fit.
He’d like to take the country back to the pre-Diefenbaker
and pre-equalization-formula era.
Those of us who remember those days are glad they’re gone
and the standards of living don’t vary that greatly
between regions. He must be modelling on the US system
where the disparities are more greatly contrasted.
“Texas is Alabama with good roads”, is a telling
example of the disparities that exist there.
Sadly, it’s Harper’s setting his cap at the Republican
style of government that’s hurting our nationhood.
He’s emulated Bush and John Howard’s pattern of
governing and both those people are no longer in office.
The most recent events of this last week such as the
UA Emirates fiasco and the failure to obtain
a UN Security Council seat attest to how poorly the
nation is now viewed by the rest of the world.
His phrase that we won’t recognise this country once
he’s through with it is indeed becoming more of a
promise fulfilled with the passage of time.
Now it’s time for us to act to stop this.
I’m not sure I agree with your central arguement on the role of the federal government in the affairs of the provinces: “The federal government’s job is to make sure that our social institutions are safeguarded from the market.”
Removing equalization wouldn’t spell doom for public services like health care and education. However, ending equalization would certainly skew the quality of those services across the provinces. Moving to two-tiered health insurance would be a whole different constitutional brouhaha. Ending equalization signals, to me, that disparity in the quality of services such as health care and education do not amount to “national” issues worth attention from the federal government. This position is a mistake and should be avoided by all concerned Canadians. Quality of education and public health are major reasons for shifts in domestic migration, economic strength, and provincial prosperity.
If Bernier thinks that Quebec can swim on it’s own without transfer payments, then he should join the Bloc.
ck Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 4:42 PM
Bernier once went on the Tommy Schnurmacher show saying that there should be zero inflation; that we needed “deflation all the way”; one could tell that even Tea-baggin’ Tommy was having hard time keeping a straight face when ol’ Ex-Lax Max was sayin’ that.
And, thanks to the 2005 supreme court decision of Chaoulli v Gov’t of Quebec, we have the most private for profit clinics and other health care facilities than the rest of Canada. Case and point: I guarantee, the waiting lists in our public are not shorter than in the ROC. In fact, the Charest gov’t sinks far more money in the private for profit than the public system, hence why the public system suffers. I imagine that under the Parti Quebecois, as well as the other parties, it wouldn’t be much different.
I believe you proved my argument in the last paragraph of your comment.
Whether or not Charest spends provincial dollars on private insurance (I am not an expert on Quebec’s health care arrangements…) wouldn’t necessarily change if equalization dollars from the Feds increased or fell. Provincial public health insurance would roll on with or without federal dollars, but the quality of such would be greatly diminished across the board. Charest has to spend health equalization dollars towards public insurance coverage. What that coverage looks like is up to the provinces. The theory behind equalization is that every Canadian, no matter where they are, is entitled to a (monetary) amount of coverage deemed acceptable. Whether or not you can actually get into a hospital in Quebec versus BC versus Nova Scotia is another discussion.
Eliminating equalization would mean the feds would stop “topping up” provincial public insurance plans. A public system would still exist, it wouldn’t be what it is today – probably worse – but it would exist nonetheless as public health would become an ever greater part of provincial spending than it already is. We shouldn’t support equalization because it keeps “the market” at bay, we should support it because health insurance is a fundamental right of all Canadians no matter where you live in the country.