Ottawa's fiscal finger of fate
Tories look to pare federal role: Finance minister
Talks may be start
Les Whittington | Ottowa | June 26
Toronto Star [1] - Canadians may get more than they expected from Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government — a lot more.
When the country's finance ministers gather in Niagara-on-the-Lake today, the agenda will cover everything from the so-called fiscal imbalance to "equalization." And beneath the bewildering stats and arcane terminology is hidden a question of enormous importance for the future: What kind of country do Canadians want?
With little fanfare and less public discussion, Harper has embarked on a quiet campaign — some would call it a revolution — to alter the way governments work and provide services to citizens in today's Canada. This effort to reshape federal-provincial relations so Ottawa is no longer the beacon for national goals and aspirations in social programs may take years. But it will begin to gather force this week as Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and his provincial counterparts spend two days laying out the groundwork for nine months of negotiations on federal-provincial money issues.
Harper and company appear determined to turn back the clock by abandoning the central role Ottawa has played in national social and economic programs as the country evolved over the past century into a modern, urban state. The Conservatives' under-the-radar thrust is starting to raise questions about the country's ability to mount effective, national social programs and, in the worst-case scenario, ensure the continued unity of Canada.
More- plus Canuck's take- after the jump.
It's a very dangerous path," says Roy Romanow, the former Saskatchewan premier who wrote a landmark 2002 study on Canada's health-care system. "If the words of the Conservative leaders translate into what some think they will, it's a very wrong-headed approach."
At the heart of these concerns is the fact the Harper government agrees with the premiers that relations between Ottawa and the provinces — both on financial and jurisdictional matters — are out of sync, a condition often referred to as the "fiscal imbalance."
Flaherty has pulled no punches in making it clear the Conservatives favour a major overhaul of federal-provincial dealings to address this situation.
He accuses previous Liberal governments of "meddling" in provincial affairs and proposes to redefine the roles of Ottawa and the provinces to limit the federal government's reach.
"I do think it will be good for Canadians to sort out our responsibilities and pay some attention to what was done in 1867 in Confederation," he added in a reference to the original division of powers in Canada.
At that time, Ottawa assumed jurisdiction over defence, trade, banking and other national functions while provinces were put in charge of cities, schools, hospitals, criminal justice, property rights and similar local activities. But over the decades, the federal and provincial governments have come to share responsibility for a variety of activities from immigration to the environment to health.
In practice, the Conservative approach would mean paring back Ottawa's role to concentrate mainly on defence, security and foreign affairs while leaving social programs and health care to provincial governments.
The implications for Canadians are far-reaching, says University of Ottawa historian Michael Behiels.
"Underlying Harper's moves here is a fundamental restructuring of the way the federation has operated for the last 50 years.
-----
Just like conservatism doesn’t work in America, it doesn’t work in Canada either: We’re a liberal country like the United States. [2]
“A conservative in America, in short, is someone who advocates ends that cannot be realized through means that can never be justified, at least not on the terrain of conservatism itself.”--
Conservatism is too mean-spirited. Free enterprise run amok isn’t what we as Canadians or Americans value. What we champion is the underdog and the dream that common man can improve himself and rise to be leaders in their own country displacing the privileged class. Both countries want universal education, and infrastructure that improves the lives of ordinary citizens. If that requires large government, so be it and/or for each person to pay taxes to enable it, that’s fine too. Religion is a private affair that has no place in government—that’s also liberal ideology that is not embraced by conservatism.
Harper has made several mistakes since he became Prime Minister. He doesn't believe in the free press--insists on controlling the amount of information he gives to the electorate, controls pictures that are taken of repatriated personnel, enlarges his ability to govern in an unfair manner, and instead of making the government more accountable, his legislation increases their ability to be devious. In other words, he doesn't and can't practice conservatist tenets any better than President Bush.
If Harper opens the can of worms again about same sex marriage, the drums that beat out his death toll will increase in volume. ~ canuck