One glaring point the Globe and Mail front pager on senate reform missed is blatantly obvious.
The Globe claimed that:
Analysts say that provincial opposition in smaller provinces could stem from premiers' fear that their already weak national voice will be further limited if newly influential senators appear on the scene.
That’s crap.
All provincial premiers oppose any reform of the senate that would give it real power and political legitimacy.
All premiers are afraid that they will be eclipsed by a group of politicians representing Canadians in Ottawa elected on the basis of geography. They all fear being reduced to the status of American state governors.
Frankly, that would be the best thing for Canadians as a whole. The federal parliament should be comprised of two houses, one elected by population and the other representing the provinces equally.
No provincial government should control in any way shape or form the second chamber in the national parliament.
Elect senators directly, with equal numbers from each province.
It’s that simple, but if we let the premiers get involved we will do nothing but reinforce the anti-democratic, paternalistic attitude some of them have and the anti-democratic executive federalism they love to practice.
-srbp-
21 comments:
I rarely agree with Jeffrey Simpson, but he has a good column on the topic. My bet is that nothing will come of the latest political prattle about reforming the Senate.
Umm.
Was just working on a post that takes some considerable issue with Ersatz George Will.
Great minds think alike.
Or something.
Ed:
This reminds of of Trudeau's comments in the thick of constitutional reform: "We'll go over the heads of the premiers, to the people of Canada."
Er, don't "the people" also elect premiers?
PJ
The people in their districts do, Peter.
And as heads of provincial governments they are responsible for dealing with provincial government things.
One of those provincial government things is NOT appointing or otherwise controlling members of the federal parliament.
But the point then and now was to get beyond the idea that the country is made up of 10 bits and that the federal government can only deal with Canadians through the 10 intermediaries.
Or, put another waym, that the 10 intermediaries represent in their hearts and souls the hearts and souls of all people living within the particular province based solely on the fact that the intermediary heads a provincial government.
Like I said, the provincial premiers oppose meaningful senate reform because it reduces their status. it doesn't reduce their effective political power because over the 10 years or so they've shown themselves to be a highly fractious lot.
To put all this to the test, propose recreating the Legislative Council in this province and to have its members appointed by the mayors of the towns and cities across its marvelous landscape and have it reflect the regional and cultural diversity of this province.
Newfoundland represented by 20 members and Labrador represented by 20.
See how much support that idea gets from the provincial government.
Or townies for that matter.
Peter - most emphatically, the answer is no.
Did you elect your Premier? Did you have the chance to vote for him?
Unless you live in Humber West, you can't possibly suggest that you did.
One of the unfortunate travesties of Canadian governance, stemming back at least as far as Trudeau, is that the media has centralized our politics, in either ignorance or defiance of our Westminsster Parliamentary system at least as much as the executive, the bureaucracy or political parties have, and nobody seems to have noticed.
Oh - and before I take arrows on that last point - by "media" I don't mean necessarily the people in the media, but the media itself, i.e. the shift from local news, local papers, and local radio to syndication, televsion and the internet age.
Ed:
You can split hairs about political power all you want -- from family hierarchy to world government -- but it still boils down to raw ideology.
You are a centralist, and I believe Canada is and should remain a unique experiment in regionalization of powers. Neither of these is an absolute in itself. The U.S. is more centralized. The EU is a fine example of the latter.
PJ
Er, don't "the people" also elect premiers?
They also elect MPs, provincial members, municipal councillors, mayors, school board directors... what's your point?
Peter, all you just did is duck the fairly clean rebuttal or your original assumption and attempt to impose another out of the pantheon of local nationalist myths and strawmen.
or would it be labelling to avoid having to actually deal with the substance of the issue?
In any event, let me make it clear: I am and always have been a federalist. I believe in a federal system of government for Canada.
The EU is like the UN, an international organization comprising autonomous countries as members.
It is not a federal state as anyone would generally understand that term. Canada is a federal state and a highly decentralised one at that.
Insisting that people state facts and rely on facts is not splitting hairs: it is rejecting nonsense.
So now that we have that clear did you actually have a point?
Again, you seem to miss the relativity of your so-called facts. I am a federalist too. So what? Fact is, your post is full of "should"s. As I said, it's just raw ideology. And what's with all the "myths" and "labelling" crap -- coming from the same person who called me "Duplessiste"?
If you are suggesting that the European Union is an example of a federal state then you aren't a federalist; you are just confused.
;-)
Well said!
If I did suggest that, 'd indeed be a moron. (Don't worry -- only self-labelling.) But I didn't say that. I was talking much more generally about regionalizationof powers.
And no, to anticipate your next jab, I don't want Canada to break up into an EU.
What do you mean by "regionalization of powers"?
As it stands right now the federal government ostensibly looks after international and interprovincial things and the provinces ostensibly look after things of a local and private nature.
I say ostensibly because in practice, the federal government has been intruding into areas of provincial jurisdiction but that has occured with the enthusiastic support of the provinces.
In this province for example, there seems to be no shortage of things that an - whatever it is - autonomist/independentist/domain masteringist administration can think of that ought not to be funded by Uncle Ottawa. heck, the entire past six years have been characterised by a single minded determination to make the province more dependent than less on Ottawa to deliver what services are identified as exclusively provincial.
So with that said, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "regionalisation" of powers.
Care to clarify?
Not sure why "regionalization of powers" is such a confusing concept. It's the distribution, to whateverextent, of powers to regional authorities. Nothing more. Canada has more regionalization of powers than the U.S., as I believe you've already indicated.
What you seem to be asking is why do provinces, esp. NL, whine about intrusions on juurisdiction in one breath and then whine for more cash and other support in the next. That I can't answer, but I imagine it is a symptom of many federations around the world.
As for the hypocrisy of the local government, I think that depends on what you're talking about. The "go it alone" policy on hydroelectricity, I agree, is just posturing. But the fight against oil revenue clawbacks, I believe, is more justified.
Well for starters, let's just restate the fact that there were no oil royalty clawbacks. The entire argument was a political fraud.
And you can find the extact admission of the fraud in the first clauses of the 2005 agreement. It's available on line.
That deal incidentally produced $2.0 billion in one single lump transfer of federal general revenues to the Govt of NL. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. All the oil cash that flowed afterward is the same as the stuff before: provincial direct revenue set and kept by the provincial government 100% as it has been kept since 1997 under the provisions of the 1985 deal.
Not 2005; 1985.
If you take the clawback argument to its logical conclusion and for its logical implications every single source of provincial own-source revenue is "clawed back" 100% for every single province in the country under Equalization.
If you accept the premise of the fraud then every province would receive Equalization to the absolute maximum.
you can also see the tortured logic in the premier's October 2004 interview with carol macneil wherein he argues the clawback exists up to the instant where it becomes 100% when it miraculously transforms from 100% to zero.
Sheer crap. Always was. Always will be.
Why I cannot understand your comment about "regionalisation" is that power is not distributed on a regional basis in the constitution. It's done on the principle - generally speaking - that the provincial government should handle things that are local and private.
What you seem to have missed with respect to the current administration is that it argues across the board for increased federal handouts. It isn't confined to the go-it-alone with help silliness. It is a general proposition they've pursued since 2003.
Most Labrador services for example are argued on the basis that the locals can get it when Ottawa will agree to share the cost even if the service is entirely a provincial responsibility.
There can be no retirement of fish plant workers (entirely provincially controlled) without Ottawa footing most of the bill.
And if you really want to see the extent to which the current crowd constantly argue for handouts you need look no further than the cheering in November 2008 that we live in a have province and then the bitching a mere two months later that we could not collect Equalization in the same year we were declared to receive no Equalization.
The logic of it is impossible to follow because there is no logic.
And the other great example of this was funding for universities, which is wrote about last April.
Now this may or may not be a feature of federal states. All I know is that in Canada it is an old argument and a well-worn one.
"... power is not distributed on a regional basis in the constitution."
Huh?
What is that section in the Constitution I'm looking at headed "Distribution of Legislative Powers"?
Or are you positing now that provinces don't qualify generically as regions.
And yes, oh my heavens and by Job, you sure got me good on the oil revenues. Yep, it's not the oil money that's clawed back, it's them equalization payments wot gets cut. Then the offset payments kicks as per AA85. Then they kicks out with the phasing out. Then DW wanted more to kick in again, etc. etc.
Good to drive that home for the readers.
As well, AA85 and AA05 are exceptions, not rules. Just like the Auto Pact and billions for Bombardier are expections. And it involves offset payments, not equalization money. So there is no "logical conclusion" that leads to everyone getting everything.
Your description of the celebration of "have" status followed by whining for more money reeks of intentiional omission. The complaint was that a formula NL used in budget calculations was quietly taken away by the feds without notification. Even if you insist on trying to bust the validity of this explanation, you should have at least mentioned it.
Anyway, thanks for the snotfest.
Tally ho!
Where a province is located geogrpahically is not the basis (the principle) on which it exercises control over education, for example.
"Region" isn't the basis on which a province controls what it controls under section 92.
As for the real Atlantivc Accord, I still don't think you actually understand the whole business.
The claim was that oil revenues were taken back. They weren't.
The Equaliation formula worked as it always has: as a province's won source revenue went up, the federal hand-put went down.
That's why I directed you to an interview which is still avaiable. The Premier's tortured argument and preposterous reasoning is plainly evident.
And at the end of it all he simply got a lump sum payment of 2.0 billion.
That's it.
The 2005 lump sum paynment and the paperwork that went with it did not increase oil royalites in the provincial treasury by a single penny.
The was no omission on my part about the Equalization racket last year.
The provincial government was advised by the feds - as were all other provinces - as to what was happening. They were told in November 2008.
I have posted on this once if not twice in some detail. And I may well wind up posting thrice.
But even if you accept the whole "we weren't told about changes" thing, you might ask yourself this:
On November 5 the Premier proudly proclaimed that we were living in a have province, one that would NOT receive Equalization in 2008.
So why would it matter if the formula was changed to somehow prevent the government from collecting Equalization in a year when the Prem had already shouted from the mountaintops about the glorious event?
Certainly the Premier didn't know something in January 2009 he didn't know in November 2008, no matter what way you loom at it.
I haven't left anything out. But he evidently did and so - apparently - have you.
"...but I imagine it is a symptom of many federations around the world."
Yes, you imagine it is. But in reality, it is not. The redistributive nature of Canadian state federalism is one of the elements that makes it (almost) unique.
You'd be hard pressed to find a similar example.
The entire argument was a political fraud.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
It was a fraud, pure and simple.
Just like the Auto Pact and billions for Bombardier are expections.
Auto Pact?
Post a Comment