Commitment to federalism seems to be one of those pendulums in Canada, swinging in favour of it during some periods and swinging against it during the next. Usually, the swing against it comes from provincial governments (hence the emergence of the idea of "Executive Federalism") who want money and power for their own provincial and/or electoral purposes. With Harper, I think it we are seeing the swing against federalism coming from the Federal government which is not just unusual in Canadian politics, but also ironic, if not oxymoronic. Moreover, the interesting thing with Harper is that the anti-federalism is not coming from provincial/parochial/electoral interests but from some kind of Canadian conservative ideology that seems to involve equating "big" government and "central" government. SOme, but not all Canadians are buying into this ideology. If it is going to be successful, it needs to be more clearly articulated. I'm not sure if I buy in: I mean, maybe even "big" government isn't always bad. Sure, some things are done better at a local level, but I think there are some things done better at a national level e.g. setting interests rates. I think a more detailed and richer discussion is needed if we are going to tinker with federalism and certainly Harper is not leading, so much as coercing such a discussion.

Dude. You just called me dishonest. Swords at dawn!

You personally cannot define the division, can you? I would ask you to consider how Atlantic Canadian conservatives (and liberals) are strong Federalists and collectively have roughly the same population as Alberta anti-Federalist conservatives.<p>I am sure there was no insult but if you need to know the fear that comes with the onomatopoeic of <i>brandish</i>, I can oblige.

Not to point out the humorous simplicity of your view, but -- on the flip side -- do the 2-4% of liberal Albertans have anything to teach us? Do liberals have nothing to learn from conservatives and/or vice versa? It is so sad that so many people are so naive as to fall for that. Political polarization has left many with nothing but that wonderful human condition -- that so often is confused with being a condition of religion -- that is called "blind faith" in one polar opposite or the other.

Which makes polarized politicos so fun to read.

If only more people could view things as a matter of geographic reality (i.e. Atlantic provinces have different needs to Ontario, to prairie provinces, to Northern provinces, to Pacific provinces) than on fleeting mental fancies such as whether somebody is a liberal or conservative. Maybe then we'd stop looking for the convenience store style quick fixes to the infinitely divergent needs of people who live in the second largest country by geography in the world.

Anti-Federalism implies that the Federal government needs to be eliminated entirely. I haven't seen that in this country except in Separatist parties, and if reporters in this country weren't being so disingenuous (as the Star has increasingly become) they would admit that too. But, as we have more and more people trying to paint one party or the other as having a "love" for Canada (remember that pathetic attack on Harper last year?) and that love being linked directly to how big of a Federal government we have, I fear RESPECT for our regional differences will become lost. And this will always lead to greater animosity and ultimately more harm done to the image of Federalism than if we all just respected each other's differences and allowed Provinces to pursue what works best for them instead of handcuffing them to something that somehow works for another province 2,000 kilometers away.

It is amazing in this day and age where tolerance and respect of differences is touted from every corner and t-shirt, our tolerance and respect for regional differences is stomped on in ever increasing frequency in the name of some mythical, centralized will. Are we still immune to the reality that the word "difference" exists for a reason?

P.S. Please don't take my post as calling you simplistic in any degree of the word. I'm just attempting to point out how any POV can be turned on its head to be even more effective in reverse. As you may have noticed, the Star loves doing that :-)

An originalist reading of the BNA Act would be very centralizing, yes, much unlike the American constitution. Blame the J.C.P.C. for the other reading.

As you love judicial activism, Alan, well, you got it here.

Still, in general, I prefer a more decentralized state for those "laboratories of democracy" sets of reasoning. Prefer government as low and as close to the people affected by it as possible, but with as broad a reach as possible for the commanding heights like Finance, Foreign Affairs, and Defence.

Surecure, aside from whatever humourous simplicity is, I agree with what you said but, unfortunately, we do not have a regionally based confederation. That is one problem a slackener of the Federalist role faces - just increasing provincial power does not create or elevate "the West" or "Atlantic Canada" even if they are actual homogenous enough. Socialist Saskatchewan will always disagree with capitalist Alberta and resource strong Newfoundland or Nova Scotia have little in common with weak wee PEI. Again, what is the vision or the goal? As Hans says, we only have glimmerings of some of the means. I do agree with Ben about the lowest level being most effective but it can also be festering as we see in places places I am a little familiar with like PEI or upstate New York.

Ack. A rather long and tortured bit got eaten by a 504 timeout. You all dodged a verbose bullet.

I for one, to simplfy things and not post a huge post as I am want to do, am a firm believer in having a very, very string central government that doles our monies and responsabilities but does not give away the right to claw back such if the, mere regional bodies of governance tthat they are, do not tow the line. I believe however that if certain provinces decide to become boils on the backside of the nation by not sharing the wealth so to speak, we can and should threaten them with expulsion rather than allowing them to continue.. i.e. Alberta. If they do not wish to follow the same rules as the rest of us, let em eat cake and come crying to us when the oil runs out..

But As usual, I digress.

Durn it all. Strong, not string.. completely ruins the message.

The other interesting difference expressed by the US Tenth Amendment is the reservation of ambiguity of rights to persons as well as states.

The point of anti-federalism, decentralization, or asymmetric federal representation is not so that the few can direct the many; it is so that the many can not direct the few. There is also the benefit of different jurisdictions having the freedom to take different paths. Sometimes the best solution is one we've never allowed ourselves to try.

That is undoubtedly true but <i>what</i> is it that is being tried?

Anything people might set out to do, but I'm not sure I properly understand the heart of your question. There doesn't need to be any specific "what", if that's what you mean. The general idea is to devolve authority to resolve any particular issue down to the lowest practical level. The results can be more closely fit to the local situation and there are decision cycle and opportuntity cost advantages. In simpler terms, what works well for Toronto or Ontario doesn't necessarily work as well for Calgary or Alberta; and, the priorities of Toronto or Ontario aren't necessarily the priorities of Calgary or Alberta.

The weakening of the Federal government requires reallocation of powers. Which would you devolve. And remember - Ontario and Alberta are both provinces. This is about devolution of specific powers - there is no general idea.<p>And don't worry about being humourously simplistic. This is a group project, not a debate.

What would I devolve?

'most anything except for Finance, Defence, Foreign Affairs, and... h'm... Justice, perhaps. Well, maybe Justice too. Have to think about that...

Let's try this for the third time(one 504 time out and a spontaneous deletion). Of course, i care not about verbosity. Unlike good gorthos. Brevity is for the weak!;)

I want to make sure we're on the same page here. What def'n of Federalism? That of the Federalist Society down here amoungst us Southern Cousins? One of these from Wiki's page on Federalism(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism)? Which? I haven't seen a universal def'n of what Federalism is beyond the sharing of powers between a central gov't and client polities. Nor have I seen one that says what the proportion of power to one or the other must be to considered Federalist governance. I don't want to be talking past each other here. Tell us what you mean something MUST be to be Federalist, we'll kick that around I'm sure, and then we can either agree or disagree that Harper is either smoking some powerful ganja or actually is using his brain(where's your brain Cameron).

Moving on:
Al, I'd enjoy this discussion a wee bit more if you weren't conspicously shitting on my country and the way we decided to govern ourselves, quite successfully(we can dress ourselves in the morning you know) I might add. Your last bullet, with some mod, would apply to the US for a period 5 times longer than Canada's 40 years using exactly that system you speak so derisively in bullet 4(and the 'ancestor worship' you seem to hate in bullet 1). There are ways one can say quite forcefully that they don't want to be a clone of the US system(which is what you seem to fear Harper is attempting) of government while being fair and honest and respectful that our system has generated as much freedom and success as your own without making it seem as if the US system is the return of The Reign of Terror or Krystal Nacht(not that you've done either, yet).

GO ahead, toss ALberta out. The US would just make them the 51st state in the Union. Who needs to drill in ANWR?;) Go ahead. We need another state to balance out DC being given representation, and then maybe we could change the total number of Congressional Representatives to something below ten million constituents each, and then maybe some congressional districts that made geographic sense.

"The weakening of the Federal government requires reallocation of powers. Which would you devolve. And remember - Ontario and Alberta are both provinces. This is about devolution of specific powers - there is no general idea." But what is it about this reallocation that is inherently anti-Federal? As long as the sum is still shared, with real power of some sort residing with the Fed Gov't, is it still not Federalist gov't? I think you have a better and more honest statement with saying it's a reallocation you don't like, which is obvious, than to say it is inherently undemocratic or anti-Federalist because it's neither. It's just a shift that goes away from what you want or think is prudent or good(and maybe with Harper smoking the ganja, I'm not Canadian and don't know how well your system works first hand).

Without trying to winnow this list right now, it's probably a useful starting point to at least define what's up for keeping and transferring:

http://www.canada.gc.ca/depts/major/depind_e.html

ry, I did not know that pointing out the lack of equal representation in the US Senate was shitting on your country. I have no interest in that. We have principle that is being vaguely challenged up here at the moment which could see representation by population, our governing principle, potentially altered. Pointing out that a vote in Rhode Island is worth way more than one in New York as far as a Senator is concerned is simply a fact. It would be better if you explained how representation not by population is democratic than to have the chip on the shoulder. That it has played a role in generating freedom is not the issue as it comes from special circumstances that did not occur in Canada.<p>I realize I am asking you to think from a Canadian perspective that only uses the US system as one illustration among many systems but that is what I am doing.<p>Irc: thanks for that link.

Ben, can you provide an illustration of a successful modern nation where the central government only controls those areas of jurisdiction. To help, I am aware of the Australian and US state criminal codes but at least in the US they are augmented by Federal crimes.

I'd add Health to Ben's list. The same services and procedures should be available across the board.

Oh, and Education. At least in terms of a common curriculum. (Confession: I'm a bit of a communist, so perhaps should stay out of these conversations.)

No, that is the opposite of what you should do. I want to find out where there is commonality from a broad swath of points of view and then discuss particular fields and things like the make-up of the Senate, say, over the next few weeks.

I do not plan to jump in and say 'Gawd, this is dull!' and mention the fact that Ottawa beat Buffalo 6-3 last night NOR will I question whether cm is really a communist or simply a Canadian style socialist vs. European style socialist. I refuse to get off the anti-anti-federalist track here, although it tempting....

Okay, I'll jump in again. I think it is important to consider the historical circumstances that led to the creation of federal states because this relates directly to the question of what is a federal state or what is the purpose of a federal state. I think the record shows that federations were created for defense and for trade. And probably for a bunch of other reasons related to the idea that there is security in union and wealth in a joined economic system. Do these circumstances still hold for Canada? Or is the idea of security becoming more tied to being in international organizations like NATO and the idea of wealth becoming more tied to international free trade agreements like NAFTA? While it wants to download service delivery to the provinces, is the federal government uploading national issues like defence to international authorities like NATO? If so, why not devolve authority to enter into international agreements to the provinces as well? Maybe Saskatchewan wants to send troops to Cyprus but New Brunswick does not?

In short, I think the idea of sovereign state is eroding and this erosion is most acutely felt in a federal country like Canada where the idea of nationhood was foremostly a practical consideration. Is changing the details of our federal system a good idea if it is merely a practical arrangement and not so much based on ethnic cleavages or anti-colonial revolution? Maybe. But, I still think we need a good reason and well-thought out explanations for making changes and what specific elements are being re-tooled.

For example, I think Senate reform is a worthy pro-democratic initiative but it will have an impact on the "Executive Federalism" style of government that we are familiar with of late. It may give the regions of Canada a legitimate voice in Ottawa which may take away the clout the premiers have. Might this mean that the provinces would focus more on governing within their own jurisdictions?

Is Harper, talking about any of this? Are any political analysts asking about this?

Would the Senate, like in the US, be made of provincial representatives rather than Federal appointees or electees as they are now? In the states if a Senators needs to be replaced during term, it is the call of the governor of that state, not a Federal event.

Personally, I would like to see an elected senate with equal representation from provinces (versus the "regional" representation we have now) and a few for the territories. I think you could have them elected at the same time as provincial elections and by-elections held in the same way. If these provincial senators were to be involved in governing in Ottawa, I think it would free up Premiers to focus on governing their provinces rather than bargaining with Ottawa to dole out more cash.

Harper seems to be approaching senate reform incrementally, but I don't know which way he is headed or how far he is considering going.

[edit]

Personally, I don't see the doling out of territorial responsibilities to each specific territory as being an issue of "power" so much as recognition that those who live an in area can -- in certain defined portfolios -- know what works best in that certain area.

This doesn't mean that as a whole you weaken one group or another by allowing those best equipped to serve the citizens of that area to do so. Have you ever heard of the term, "Jack of all trades, master of none"? There's a reason why no single person (and by extension no one group) can effectively govern every portfolio for every region. The complexity and demands of different regions have so many permutations that a complete centralization elevates only one thing: bureaucracy. A singular, centralized entity increases the time spent on consultation and increases the time before actual action takes place. And as more and more portfolios are added to the centralized government, more and more time is spent on talk and less and less time is spent on action.

Gorthos: Your "tow the line" narrative seems to forget what is the hardest question... "Who watches the watchers?" And I don't know why you singled out Alberta, since they have both shared the wealth and have towed the line more frequently than most other provinces. Just compare the knew-jerk enactment of the National Energy Program and how that siphoned money out of Alberta for no good reason to that of the Churchill Falls deal that has allowed Quebec to buy energy at pre-1969 prices and sell it for whatever they want with the Federal government keeping a blind-eye to what is morally if not -- legally -- a corrupt deal.

As for how to share the wealth, Alberta cannot get enough workers and the doors are open... but both Canadians and new-Canadians are settling in the other provinces (and what's worse in terms of new-Canadians getting paid to settle in other provinces more than Alberta!). If people want to take part in the money that is available in Alberta -- and Saskatchewan and Manitoba BTW -- there is nothing stopping any Canadian from moving there. But, instead, most Canadians don't want to make the effort or sacrifice to take part in the "wealth" you are talking about, but would rather enact what is at its most base level a welfare state of money reallocation.

I personally think it is obscene for us outside of Alberta who have absolutely nothing... let me repeat that... absolutely NOTHING stopping us from moving there and being a part of their success from complaining about it or demanding an unearned piece of it. If you've ever been to Alberta or know people there, you'd know that they can't get enough workers out there.

If Canadians really feel that we are all part of the same family (as the strong Federalist attitude suggests) then why are so many reluctant to go where the jobs and by extension the monies are? My sense is that talking of sentimentality towards a familial idea that is Canada and linking it to Federalism is simply nothing more than lip-service in order to really enact what is the heart of Absolutist Federalism: power grabbing for the ideas of a centralized few.

If there really was a realistic familial sense to Canada, we would see less demand for money from Alberta and more migration to Alberta. Instead, we see the effects of political centralization (Absolutist Federalism) which is that Quebec gets the most money for new immigrants -- something that makes absolutely no sense -- and there is no effort by the Federal government to encourage Canadians to help themselves by going where the jobs are and building a strong country, rather than simply a strong Federalism.

Which is the real question: which is more important, a strong country or a strong Federalism?

<i>It would seem to me, Alan, that you are not only a Federalist but an Absolute Federalist in that you would rather we eliminate Provincial powers altogether and make the Federal government the only government...</i><p>You have based your case on a false premise of your own making. I have no position in this matter. I am asking a question. Like ry, you are reading too much. Try to depersonalize and develop understanding. Don't worry about what you find obscene as it advances nothing. Again, this is not a debate, it is a group project. And don't try to debate this comment. Stay on track.<p>The question for you is why is a province a more vital expressive level of jurisdiction. Out constitution does not say it is but you seem to be arguing it is.

--"...why is a province a more vital expressive level of jurisdiction...."

That is a very good question. One might even ask: Is a province a more vital expressive level of jurisdiction? If so, why?

But you also seem to be asking (in general): Can we make our country more vital by having a more vital federal system and if so, what does the amended system look like?

{edit) <p>I do not feel a province is in any way a "vital expressive level of jurisdiction" because I feel the term "vital expressive level" is a useless gauge for determining value in governance.

A province is an a "effective level" of government. I personally don't care how my government is expressed; what I care about is how effective my government is. In that, I see that both Federal AND Provincial powers can only be strengthened when they are separated and defined.

(edit)

..in regards to how our Constitution is worded, it does not forbid Provinces from running jurisdictions on their own. There is absolutely no expression in our Constitution that could prevent any or all Provinces from having effective control over certain specific jurisdictions. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Neither the Constitution nor the Canada Act of 1982 make mention of Education and Health Care as jurisdictions of either Federal or Provincial powers.

Thus, by this fact alone, there are at least two specific jurisdictions that could be placed solely under the control of Provinces.

[edit]

<i>...as you have evaded actually discussing the core of what I said...</i><p>My blog, my rules. This isn't a debate and don't bother talking about me as you obviously know nothing of me on this. I am asking people from all points of view to explain themselves, not to take on others. I need some groundwork laid. So your line of questions is going to be edited after this point. I need positive statements. That means you have to actually have a point of view.

Okay. It's good to have a clear view of how you run your ship. Unfortunately, as long as you feel necessary to edit out what is said -- which in my case neither constituted a personal attack on you nor any form of derogatory, inflammatory, derisive or objectionable language -- there can be no means to have an open discussion and thus broadening and discovery of ideas.

I have a feeling though that my last question about the division between municipal, provincial and federal jurisdictions must have clarified why I feel that necessary division of powers does not hurt Federalism in any way. It is interesting that you felt the need to edit that one out.

Never fear. I have to ensure that these group projects are about content and have to do it in this way.<p><i>And</i> it may be on point if you did not make it another personal comment - <b>but</b> I may have committed a grievous error in doing so. You see, I work for a municipal government and thought you were being personal. I apologize fully and completely. [I am particularly thick today for reasons which I cannot explain though they would make the hardest heart melt.] If you care to, please make that point again. If you do not, it is entirely my fault.

Wel, regardless of what I have read from others since my last comment, I for one still say that I like a structured environment with delegation from above and retraction of powers thus delegated as required for the good of the nation. Dederal delegates and retractes from Provincial bodies, provincial from municipal. If the people en-masse are unhappy, they will de-elect persons as they see fit.

Al you really have to get off this direct representation kick. You're totally ignoring that there is a case to be made that such a set up makes some provinces 'more equal than others' and real dangers to minorities in such an arrangement.

We covered that down here. THat's the House, which is just as powerful and important as the Senate. Your parliamentary system is far more susceptible to demagaugery(what would a strong pro-fascist have done for Canadian support during WW2 of Britain?) than us because we have both the Senate, which makes each state equal within the Union, and the House, which takes into account population size and the needs of said by attributing voting by said---and the real power of the purse since all spending originates in the House. You're totally ignoring the threat of the many shoving around the few and the power of the rich and connected to shaft the less so out in the rural zones(which will always have lower population density). So you're going daft by railing against this set up. This set up, unlike the British one, took the best and worst of both parliamentarism and republicanism to protect all the people---not just the urbanites and big states. It works.

I would say Canada is finally hitting that wall where urbanites and rurals really are divergent in needs and have the political clout to screw one another. The urbans have finally enough numbers that their needs are drastically different---and they want their needs met. Unfortunately, if you're not an urban/sub-urban the fulfillment of those needs means you're right sol. Hence the need to re-apportion decision making power. If Canada wants to remain a nation where all feel part of a single identity you have to balance the needs of the rurals(minority) and the urbans(massive majority).

Remember, I grew up a city boy and have only lived in a quasi rural area for about the last 6 years. What we had our house represenatitives vote for in CA, overwhelimingly urban, really screwed the rural Indianans. Hard. So too in the state senate where the urbans have almost all the power. I see the effects of it daily. If you want to be an equitable society you have to accept that the rurals have needs that will sometimes superceed yours, and vice versa. You all pull on one chain that moves you all together, not dragooning them to move you to your prefences.

Now, that's Harper and what he's doing. It's Federalism and in the spirit of federalist governance and keeping Canada one nation(instead of two nations with one lording over the other, an overclass urban First Citizen supported by the Second Class rural slob--how very Spartan). He's just shifting the distribution a bit to fit the needs of all(which threatens some because they love their benies). Undoing a hundred years of tradition and stepping on a store full of toes to do it too. But then, it isn't Canada of 100 years ago now is it? If it makes it more fair, which I would say a shift of the balance of power away from one in which the majority is held by central gov't and a few more populous provinces, it is a good thing.

What to leave the Cen't Govt? Of course defence. Probably the power to tax for road upkeep of the major roads and other major infrastructure---tv, radio, power, water, what a beautiful revenue stream if business has to buy from the gov't all its electricity and use of roads. The postal service as that's necessary to control interstate commerce. The most powerful of the judiciary powers. The power to arbitrate between provinces in internal trade disputes. All of foreign policy and int'l trade. Have to leave education---each graduate from secondary school has to be known to be of equivalent skills. The tradition of universal and single payer healthcare represents a problem. People love their benies, and of course if companies like Eli Lilly and Roche and Novo Nordis actually charged Canada wholesale(instead of below wholesale costs imposed by the gov't) such an arrangement would be impossible---which means we pay almost all the r&d costs down here in the lower 48, yeah, that's an equitable and good arrangement as we'll just shove the costs onto someone else(thanks Canadians!). But it's what the people were taught would be there for them. It's somewhat unfair to yank that away from them---like ending social security would be here. So I guess you have to leave it, but then, you could make it the responsibility of each province too with a possibility of fed subsidy if things go wrong or population swamps the healthcare system.

Rigidity is often bad. Systems that are unresponsive or unadaptable often crash and leave a bloody mess. Nor do they live up to 'fraternity, legality, equality'. They may be legal, but they sure ain't about brotherhood and equaility. I really think you need to look at Northern California. The real power resides in San Francisco. They control just about everything with their economic power. And what they impose, by voting---even if they are only 1/5 the population north of SLO---which is very democratic, impacts and screws people in places like Stanislaus which is nothing but a bunch of farms and orchards who need water and to drive alot to maintain their livlihoods and also just to get around---there isn't a Muni there nor would one work given the distances involved. So yeah, it's not like the Rurals ever have a point that needs to be listened to. Nope. Their just a bunch of bastards who want to undo all your hard earned social equality(in the cities).

A senate? It's there to make each state province equal. They need to have the same number of representatives from each. The other house, not the lower(I hate that phrase, and Moby for being a fool saying that the Senate is Patrician, fool), should balance that out by being decided by population size. Then both have to listen to and deal with the problems of the rural and the city-folk with a compromise possible. Otherwise you're allowing one side to push the other around. Weighting by population or economic worth will always bias in favor of populist policies---which aren't always what's best, though they often are.
Unfortunately, that leaves you something like the US COngress, which no Canadian in his right mind wants since that almost always leads to a two party system permanently entrenched while one of the strengths of Canada is the rapidity with which new ideas are absorbed by the rise and fall of various parties over the last century. That dynamism would be lost. I don't think there's a way to be fair without becoming slower, Al. I really don't.

Good post:

1. <i>Have to leave education---each graduate from secondary school has to be known to be of equivalent skills... </i>

Education is provincial in Canada so you have some very unequally worthwhile degrees out there.

2. <i>If Canada wants to remain a nation where all feel part of a single identity... </i>

I am not sure that is the case now or that that is an interest of the Prime Minister's.

As a first cut I would undertake changes that can be made without altering constitutional law. I would take the federal government out of the game of taxing revenue and then offering it up to be spent in areas of (current) provincial jurisdiction with conditions attached. For example, health care funding, insurance, and delivery I would turn over entirely to the provinces. If people want some commonality in health insurance and care delivery, they can push their provincial governments to do so - I would expect them to do so - and still have the power to be different if there are some provisions they simply don't want or need. Broadly, I find interprovincial accords preferable to imposed federal limitations. Our health care system could be better. I think root differences in sociopolitical and cultural attitudes mitigate against making useful comparisons with how the French system or US system work: those systems are what those cultures want. If we're going to tinker with different modes of health care insurance and delivery to see what works in Canada, it has to be done in a Canadian context, even if the regions of Canada have their own sociopolitical and cultural flavour. Better to have 10 provincial tinkers working in parallel than a single federal one.

I prefer a bicameral system to a single body. If we are to have a bicameral system, I see no useful point to having two bodies elected by popular vote; one is sufficient. The other needs to provide representation on a different basis as a counterweight to the expression of the popular will. I disagree with the original British idea that the gentry or other elite needed to be able to protect their interests from the bulk of the people; I disagree that the second body needs to be an expression of the preferences of the Prime Ministers (potentially, abused to be another body serving elite interests) of the other body; but I appreciate the US system in which the Senate provides some means for the less populated states to not be forced to adopt the preferences of the populous ones. I suppose in general I favour a system which provides a greater power to opt out than the power to compel conformity.

Post-secondary education is another example of where provinces should be able to work out agreed expectations. We already have a substantial amount of mobility between the US and Canada for undergraduate and graduate students.

I weep. What a beautiful, positive statement. I like your inter-provincial accord observation but what is a Federation but one general accord? How is Canada advanced differently through the use of specific accords? Further, if smaller states block Senate passage of laws, is it not the case that are not opting out, merely denying the provision in question to all? If that is the case, is it not merely elitism of the state government over the population as a whole?

A Federation is a general accord on constitutionally specified matters. Ten provinces agreeing to lift all interprovincial trade barriers would constitute a de facto federal accord. Every time all provinces agree on common grounds, I suppose it advances Canada (a common vision). But every time nine provinces agree on something and one opts out to try its own home-built scheme, I believe that also advances Canada. All parties remain happier than if nine agree and impose their concensus on the holdout. I suppose there might be dissatisfaction among the nine, of not bending the one to their will. There are still the possibilities that the one will demonstrate something useful to the nine, or eventually opt in with the nine, without pissing anyone off in the interim. That is how Canada advances differently - concensus just takes longer, or time demonstrates the weaknesses of the concensus decision without the burden of the alienation of the dissenters during the time required to recognize the weaknesses.

There are bound to be some legislative issues which, if blocked, are problematic to achieve interprovincially. It's not a priori obvious to me which issues would be completely intractable and could not be worked around. Denial of one avenue isn't necessarily denial of all paths. I don't see how a province could impose anything on the population as a whole; all a province could hope to do is force the balance of the country to impose their wishes only on themselves. An exemption clause could be sufficient to remove objections to a provision.

"I am not sure that is the case now or that that is an interest of the Prime Minister's."
Oh? Look, I'm not ignorant about regionalism. BUt there is a single identity at play. Why do all Canadians get pissed when Americans pretend to be Canucks in France? They can all unify around that single idea of being Canadian(well, except maybe some of the Quebecois). Same for the English. It plays down here as well. There are variances allowed for regionalism but the 'X# of ideas that makes one Y' are always at the core. That's what makes one a Canadian or American. That's why I thought, given this statement---"Will it really be a Postal Union with a military on the side or does Canada mean something more than that?"---, was that you were pissed Harper was mseeing with that nebulous something, that set of values that transcended province, class, creed, and ethnicity to make one a Cannuckistaner. If that rule set existed previously why doesn't it exist now with Harper only planning on doing something and not actually having done it?

It exists. It's tenous and nebulous, but it exists. Don't ask me what since it's a qualitative thing and not quantitatve. YOu know it when you see it. Like when adding cold permanganate sol'n to an organic liquid tells you what it is qualitatively but not concretely.

That identity is threatened when you have a serious power imbalance or when a benign rule by the urbanites becomes malignant. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.---Yoda
So you have a choice. Really listen to the ALbertans and other Rurals and get them what they need(as opposed to everything they want and whine about) or change so that they have the ability to get it.

I thought the educational dept was rather centralized? Sure, it may have a rahter great amount of variance by state, outcomes always will vary, but there's a great deal of input by the Federal gov't. Canada is less so? I'm not talking about book choices for a particular subject or choosing to offer Chinese instead of Italian, but how much English, Math, History, etc, had to be in a curriculum was decided by a big dept in Ottawa. No? My bad. I keep telling you I don't know all the in's and out's of Canadian politics.

>concensus just takes longer

I should have written "unanimity just takes longer".

ry, grade school education is a provincial responsibility here, not a federal one as it is in the US. Provinces set their own curricula and most (all, I suspect) of the unions representing teachers here are distinct for each province.

And, next week, the Banks....

It's late here and I'll post more tomorrow but a couple of points: federalism at its base implies at least two orders of government above a municipal level each of which is charged with some unique jurisdiction. How the jurisdictional deck is shuffled is a matter of taste, historical accident, judicial randomness and assorted - long dead - issues of particular days.

The argument against a powerful and broadly active central government is usually about the accesibility of that government and its capacity to, in principle, formulate rules in particular areas of general applicability. For example: a national building code in Canada ensures that we have leaky condos in Vancouver and Victoria.

The problem posed by a powerful central government is one of granularity. It has to treat all Canadians alike but all Canadians are not alike. Even in matters as seemingly "national" as interest rates what makes sense in Alberta (higher interest rates to cool a rapidly overheating economy) would be toxic to the Maritimes.

The political idea of a strong central government (as opposed to the constitutional notion on which more anon) really derives from the political obsessions of FR Scott and Eugene Forsey (good dippers both) who saw the central government as a bulwark of "progressivism" against the hicks (aka "rural overlords") and fascists (aka Maurice Duplessis) whom they saw running places like Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec. It was left to Pearson and then Trudeau to figure out ways of undermining the backward policies of the provinces.

Politically, in the absence of a re-apportionment of constitutional powers, the Trudeautopians came up with the rather clever idea of using the Federal spending power (and, of course, the taxing power) to give the provinces "take it or leave it" propositions in health and education. This fiscal barging into provincial jurisdiction was pretty hard to resist particularly as the feds were willing to treat Quebec rather differently than the rest of the provinces.

However, the sublime moment in the federalist enterprise predates Trudeau: the invention of equalization payments in 1957. These pretty much ensured that the natural process of population migration from poorer areas to richer ones was retarded if not entirely eliminated. These transactions of decline (as Jane Jacobs so accurately described them in her essential <i>The Question of Separatism</i> are now enshrined in s. 36(2) of the Constitution Act and represent the main stumbling block to a more decentralized Canada.

More on why a more decentralized Canada is a good idea in the morning.

I might just be gaining some respect for blogging all of a sudden. I may not agree with some of the above but at least I can understand it.

The argument for decentralization in Canada is best made from the bottom up.

Central government presumes an aggregation of power, decentralization presumes its opposite - disaggregation. The essential problem with aggregation is that it imposes - of necessity - a "one size fits all" view of the world on a world made up of individuals. At its very best the aggregated state can sometimes achieve a "one size fits many" situation but it will always end up coercing at least a minority.

A decentralized state is more granular. As power moves closer to the individual the level of coercion and the imprecision of "fit" is lessened. Looked at from the perspective of individual autonomy, the greater the disaggregation the closer to a given individual's preferences the power of the state will become.

The social bargain results from the tension between what an individual can accomplish on his or her own and the desirability of goals which cannot be achieved without the co-operation of others. The question here is one of scale. For example - a primary school or a neighbourhood clinic can be organized and funded at a purely local level and reflect the concerns and values of that neighbourhood. There is very little virtue in organizing such things at a national or even citywide level. No greater efficiency will be achieved and the specifically local preferences will be diluted. On the other hand, if the state is to be involved in training teachers or doctors it may make sense from an efficiency perspective to create institutions for such training at a citywide or provincial level.

Ideologically a strong preference for disaggregation is the natural outcome of a strong commitment to individual autonomy; a preference for aggregation tends to stem from a concept of group rather than individual rights. However, there are good efficiency arguments for disaggregation which go beyond the individual/group preference.

Driving decision making ever closer to the individual means that the decision makers (in so far as they are not the individuals themselves) are in direct touch with the people for whom they are making the decisions. Mayors of small towns do not commission polls to find out what people think; they can find out by walking into any cafe in town. One of the unfortunate - and inevitable - effects of centralized authority is that there is next to no citizen input into decisions save through ritualized and heavily professionalized (think lobby groups and governmental affairs consultants)"public input" processes. The more aggregated and centralized decision making becomes the less democratic it can be.

As decision making is centralized a class of decision makers - with their own interests and agenda - comes into being. So do groups of workers whose interests and livelihoods depend upon the perpetuation and extension of the aggregated system. (To give an example: the Liberal party National Childcare program was a program designed to please unionized daycare workers, their supervisors, people who teach early childhood education and the people who inspect and certify daycare centers. The CPC program aimed to please parents.)

The creation of a class of professional politicians and bureaucrats with their own interests attenuates the system even further from the concerns of individuals. The natural product of a centralized system is a well paid governing elite which cannot help but see its particular bugbears (global warming, multiculturalism, internationalism, immigration, arts funding, national health standards, national unity, a strong central government, nation building) as progressive and right thinking and those who question such things as regressive and ignorant (not to say bigoted.) As they are charged under the current system with advancing the interests of "Canada" it is not surprising that they see their personal beliefs as identical with those of the nation.

The centralized nature of the Canadian state means that dissent from all or even some of the elite's beliefs is not only seen as retrograde, it can be completely excluded from consideration. To take a simple example: more or less by fiat both the CPC and the Liberals have adopted the bureaucracy's idea that any restriction on immigration to Canada is unthinkable and likely racist. This, notwithstanding the fact that significant numbers of Canadians are deeply concerned about the impact of immigration on their cities, in their schoold and in their neighbourhoods. Or, to take another example: poor Elizabeth May by merely suggesting that abortions are not an unalloyed blessing for the particular women who have them, has been pilloried and marginalized by the left and the much of the media.

Aggregated power leads to a sort of group think in which alternatives are limited to a very narrow range of choices simply because the elites who wield this power tend to come from remarkably similar backgrounds, be similarly educated and, unsurprisingly, share rather similar values. The inputs to the system are similarly constrained. Realistically, if the federal government is polling on immigration how likely is it that a five year immigration moratorium would be one of the listed options? Or if there were to be public process on the - thank God - finally resolved issue of SSM how likely is it that the option of the government getting out of the marriage business would be considered?

The greater the centralization the greater the homogenization of opinion and policy. Aggregated power tends to be inherently extremely conservative in the sense of continuing to do what has always been done and resisting innovation until and unless it is crucial to the preservation of the system. Blandness, self perpetuation at any cost (see Adscam), a dependence on interest groups and polling for information, an institutional tendency towards expansion of function and an attenuation from individual and local concerns all tend to characterize a centralized government. Epistemologically, a central government tends towards a view that its "commanding heights" ensure that it knows best. It is a vision grounded in the best management practices middle years of the 20th century.

Disaggregating power, decentralizing, is inherently radical and epistemologically modest. Essentially, the decentralizer believes that there are many possible solutions to most issues and no one solution is going to work for all localized instances of a particular problem. In its earliest incarnation it was a simple recognition of the limitations to communication and command and control posed by vast distance. In its post modern incarnation it is a recognition that command and control are no longer necessary or desirable.

When the 1950s and 1960s, largely Liberal, mandarinate ran Ottawa it was quite possible to truthfully say that they knew best because they knew more. Certainly more than the yahoos in the West and the superstitious fascists who ran Quebec. The rise of extremely well educated, very well trained, governing elites in the provinces has pretty much put paid to Ottawa's monopoly on policy development or implementation.

What is left to do is to first restore the powers to the provinces which the federal government has undermined with conditional grants and the use of the spending power. When that is accomplished the next step is to reduce the federal government to an extremely limited set of functions - mainly those which cannot be performed efficiently by the provinces or, better still, the municipalities.

At the risk of sounding techno utopian, we now have the capacity for instant communication, rapid data retrieval, easy research and quick innovation. We can travel inexpensively. We can move house without covered wagons. The clanky, industrial, machinery of a strong federal government is increasingly a bug not a feature. Like many other industrial age organizations it is staggering to the ash heap of history. Not before time.

Since Jay has mentioned efficiency and Surecure alluded to the time factor, I suppose it can't hurt to explain that my mention of "decision cycle" is a term of art summing what conceptually underpins those factors.

AFAIK much of the formal study of decision cycles originated within military circles, particularly John Boyd and his explanation of the OODA loop. However, understanding of the idea certainly predates him: the German way of war since the time of Napoleon incorporated it, and undoubtedly others before and since.

The decision cycle is the process of framing a situation, evaluating it, formulating a plan to exploit it, and executing the plan - in short, reacting to events in a deliberate way. Where two or more agents or forces are in competition or interacting (and one may include abstractions of nature and economies and so forth), one gains advantages if one can react more quickly and impose a changed situation on adversaries (or simply by reacting sooner to one's own advantage in a non-adversarial situation). In the adversarial (eg. military, business) context, the party with the overall faster decision cycle gains an increasing advantage with each successive cycle because the other parties are still working through their own earlier cycles reacting to information which becomes progressively more obsolete. Ultimately the slower parties become virtually paralyzed with respect to having any ability to positively influence matters to their own advantage, while the faster parties retain the initiative. An obvious textbook military example is the 1940 defeat of the western Allies in France and BeNeLux by Germany. Someone familiar with the history of competition between large enterprises can probably enumerate several examples in business. A non-adversarial illustration is provided by public welfare emergency management: the most effective short-term reactions are those for which there are low-level parties empowered and resourced to react immediately without waiting for central authorities to come to grips with catastrophic events.

One of the keys to speeding up decision cycles is to decentralize authority to make and execute decisions, and to express to the lower levels what must be achieved rather than how it must be done (ends, not means). This, not incidentally, introduces the powerful synergistic effect of bringing more human ingenuity to a problem.

I am absolutely sold on the idea of the decision cycle as an explanation of how to successfully undertake complex matters, and consequently on the advantages of devolution of authority. With respect to discussion of government jurisdictions and the questions of federalism and centralization, there are two critical elements: first, to separate what is of interest to the higher levels from what is not; second, to separate the "what" (higher level) from the "how" (lower level) at every practical juncture.

I think Jay and IrC that those are fine statements but they are fairly dislocated. To be fair I am thinking of this as a very high level start for this long term project but there has to be a way to connect these fairly abstract (and therefore comforting) ideas with actual Canadian governance. Your illustrations are not really challengable as they are too obtuse and work too mch like decoration. For example, it is little use to write "...someone familiar with the history of competition between large enterprises can probably enumerate several examples in business..." as that argument is an apple pie one in that you are not going to enumerate the downside of competition and all the extra costs of bankruptcy, pollution and the like. But that is fine as it is mere ornamentation and gives those familiar with it what they make of it.

But don't worry about it - I want to move past it and this is not a debate. I would also note that you have assumed that I am a big government person but I am all for more local power. I am a big fan, for examples, of certain powers being granted to very local jurisdictions in New York state. But tax powers have to be granted at the same level. That specific association of tax power to authority to decide is more of the thing I am interested in. But we will work on that.

To be more concrete, consider the Canada Health Act. I consider it an example of legislation that shows a lot of promise for being a document describing "what" (eg. five principles), provided the "how" (eg. billing limitations) were removed.

Perfect!

I agree with Jay & IrC's take on things. Another specific example would be the ridiculous approach HRSDC takes on Labour Market Opinions (which must be issued prior to a work permit being extended to someone wanting to work here). Here's a summary of the process:

1. Company wishing to hire a foreign worker fills out a 5-6 page application, showing that they have advertised the position for 3 months and haven't found a Canadian qualified & willing to take the job (this has been reduced to 7 days in AB & BC recently) and sends it to local HRSDC office for processing.
2. Bureaucrat reads the document and agrees/disagrees the position has been adequately advertised to "prove" that no Canadian candidate is available (they usually agree).
3. Bureaucrat THEN looks at the salary being offered and compares it to the market.

THIS is where the breakdown occurs. They look at the provincial average. That might work in Ontario (but probably not) but it doesn't work in Alberta. I'm going to guess that probably 25-30% of the workforce is in Fort McMurray. Fort Mac is not that great of a place to be - it's 5 hours northeast of Edmonton, in the middle of nowhere. Housing (if you can find it) is ridiculously expensive, so taxfree Living Out Allowances of $3200/month are provided. That is not enough to get people to work there willingly, so wages are increased between 15-25% to attract workers.

So. The company wants to hire someone to work in, say, Red Deer. The person will be home every night with their family. Housing is (relatively) reasonably priced. The company already has 25-30 or howevermany people doing the job, and needs to hire a foreign worker to fill a gap. HRSDC will, 9 times out of 10, insist that the company pay the foreign worker a higher wage than those of the 25-30 already on the payroll, because they use the Fort Mac, Edmonton & Calgary numbers when considering the "average." So the company must either (a) jack up everyone's salaries or (b) leave the position open.

HRSDC will say this policy prevents companies from bringing in foreign workers and underpaying them. I agree that some oversight should occur, but logic dictates that regional differences be taken into consideration. Sadly, logic currently has no place in this process.

To get an example (that is non-oil-related) of the differences in salaries for the SAME POSITION in different cities, go to this legal website. If you look at the salary surveys, you will see a huge difference in salaries for associates within the province of Ontario. $90k in Toronto for first year, 40-70k in Ottawa.

Yet a bureaucrat would insist that a law firm in North Bay pay a 2nd year associate the average between Ottawa and Toronto. How dumb is that?

(putting aside the reality that you probably wouldn't be hiring a foreign lawyer as they'd need some retraining).

So the overall policy of "pay fair" is a good one, but needs to be applied regionally within each province, not provincially. Ergo, there should be a federal policy delivered at LEAST at the provincial level, if not possibly municipal.

Excellent idea, btw

Exceptionally lucid observations, Candace.

Great example Candace!

My own is a bit less specific. It seems that - despite many good reasons not to - the CPC and the Liberals want to "do something" about global warming and carbon emissions. There are lots of choices here. However, the fairest and likely one of the most effective would be to impose a direct and rather stiff tax on gasoline in order to discourage consumption. Say $2.00 to $3.00 per litre.

Want to bet that is going to happen....

Instead the more likely scenario is to force the tar sands folks and other oil producers to cut their emissions. The costs of such cuts would, to a degree be passed on to the Canadian consumer but, because a good deal of the oil is exported, they would also be passed to the American consumer. And, of course, they would have a radical effect on the value of investments made to date in the oil sands effectively confiscating a good deal of that value.

Why? Well, simply put there are relatively few votes to be lost imposing what amounts to a tax on a relatively concentrated group of companies as opposed to every suburbanite in the country. Yes, Alberta will be angry. But that is 38 seats. So what?

Virtually every federal program imposes differential costs on various regions and provinces and provides benefits skewed towards particular provinces. Proposals for radical decentralization see this as an essential flaw within the nature of a centralized federation.

By returning power (and revenues) to the provinces and leaving it up to them to set their own agendas the political benefits of regional favoritism would be greatly reduced. Endless investment in Bombardier, the insanity of transfer payments to provinces which have become "have" provinces, the goofiness of different rules for EI eligibility, the essential dumbness of national standards for entirely local questions, would be eliminated at a stroke.

More importantly, empowered provinces would be able to look for creative solutions to the problems their own populations believe are important.

There would, of course, be costs to such a revision. The depopulation of the Maritimes, parts of Quebec and Ontario and parts of the Prairies would accelerate. Don't have a job in Nova Scotia? Well there are lots in Calgary.

The ability of large voting blocs - vide Quebec - to impose their concerns on the rest of the country would be reduced. The federal government would shrink....a lot. Fiscal rebalancing would be off the table because, as the feds shed their responsibilities, they would be handing back the taxing power and the revenue to the provinces. With luck, within a decade, Ottawa would cease to have much function save the armed forces.

And what of Canada should this take place? One of the greatest errors of the Trudeaucrats was the belief that Canadianshad to see their federal government doing things for them in order for them to support Canada. I suspect this is because the Trudeaucrats were so intent on destroying many of the institutions and the traditions which inspired loyalty and patriotism. When they had dumped Dominion Day, downgraded the Monarchy, unified the Armed Forces, recast history to make room for two founding nations, rewritten one the national anthen and dumped the other and loaded up on non-European immigrants, there was next to nothing left of Canada save cheques with the Canadamark on them. Or, so they feared.

In fact, notwithstanding the antics of Ottawa, Canadians, old and new, French and English, have managed to retain a deep and abiding love for our country. And, for the most part, this is not a cupboard love; rather it is a deep sense that Canadians were and remain proud of all the gifts our nation gives us and which we give to each other: civility, order, good beer, beauty, space, hockey, a sense of inclusiveness and - despite the best efforts of the revisionists - an honourable and, in places, heroic history. We do not need Heritage Minutes or the strings attached gifts of Ottawa to know how delighted and grateful we are to be Canadian.

Downsizing Ottawa would not change the essentials of Canada. Instead it would remove a great deal of the friction which keeps bringing Canada to the brink of its own extinction.

"Downsizing Ottawa would not change the essentials of Canada. Instead it would remove a great deal of the friction which keeps bringing Canada to the brink of its own extinction."

Well said. For far too many years, regions have been played against each other in vote-getting ploys. A classic example would be Martin playing the "Alberta card" in the last election.

One of the best things that blogging has done for me is to open my eyes & ears to others across the country, that I have never physically met, and to realize that when push comes to shove, most of us are looking for the same thing(s), we just articulate it differently. For example, I've come to realize that the difference between Quebec and Alberta is Quebec continuously DEMANDS its rights as granted in the BNA & Charter. Alberta has just b*tched as they eroded. I NEVER thought I'd see the day that I'd sympathize w/Jacques Smith. Ever.

All I, and most people I know, want is the right & ability to do with my talents what I can, without someone (i.e. gov't) getting in my way. I will do what I need to raise my child - whether it's day- or afterschool care, friends, family - I will give 110% at work and be rewarded, rather than watch someone who gives 80% get promoted because of "seniority" vs skill, etc.

Federal programs that focus on anything other than a truly "national" bent do not help me, whatsoever. A prime example of gov't getting in the way is comparing the status of AB and SK. Is anyone so foolish as to believe that the dinosaurs, all those years ago, recognized the provincial border? Yet AB is thriving and SK is not.

Hmmmm I've gone off on a tangent and may be deleted. Oh well.

This is a good argument. Not that I necessarily believe it to be a trump card but well said.<blockquote class="smalltext"><i>Virtually every federal program imposes differential costs on various regions and provinces and provides benefits skewed towards particular provinces. Proposals for radical decentralization see this as an essential flaw within the nature of a centralized federation. By returning power (and revenues) to the provinces and leaving it up to them to set their own agendas the political benefits of regional favoritism would be greatly reduced. Endless investment in Bombardier, the insanity of transfer payments to provinces which have become "have" provinces, the goofiness of different rules for EI eligibility, the essential dumbness of national standards for entirely local questions, would be eliminated at a stroke.</i></blockquote>It is important to differentiate between levels of jurisdiction and libertarianism as no matter where you place the powers to govern the individual is equally effected. That is a question for another day. What I am interested in in this project is why a power is located with which level of government. The effect on moving powers away on what Canada is is a related question but one that will keep coming up with any luck. <p>This evening I will post the next GP specifically on the Senate.

"It is important to differentiate between levels of jurisdiction and libertarianism as no matter where you place the powers to govern the individual is equally effected."

I agree that this is important but, as you know, I argue from a libertarian position. One of the key reasons I want to see power devolve to the provinces is the very real possibility that some provinces will forebear from using that power thereby increasing individual autonomy. So, for example, Saskatchewan may want to continue with its highly interventionist policies as it receives more and more power from Ottawa. Alberta may choose to follow its - relatively - less interventionist course. Individual citizens would be entirely free to move from one jurisdiction to another depending on preference. (As they are now which is leading to the rapid depopulation of Saskachewan.)

If more and more power was devolved away from Ottawa various provinces would be in a position to use that power differently. Over time the unique political cultures, natural advantages, demographic characteristics, relative wealth and geographic locations of the various provinces would tend to create divergent solutions to the basic questions of government. The current system stifles innovation in the name of "national standards" and demands conformity as between distinctly different places and cultures; a decentralized system would allow those places and cultures to fashion their own responses to the challenges they face.

(And, to foreshadow the next topic: Senate reform is a solution for a centralized nation, in a decentralized nation it is a matter of indifference.)

Sorry. I know we're moving on, Al, but I feel compelled to play devil's advocate to the recent posters: What leads us to believe that provincial governments will resist bureaucratization and interventionist tendencies supposedly inherent in the federal/central government once the federal government stops intefering in their jurisdictions?

We need more of you Hans. These libertarians congregate over the weekend. And we are not so much moving on as adding so feel free to keep posting here.<p>Senate group project delayed due to 7:45 am waking.

Okay then. I see alot of talk in the self-professed libertarians' comments about Alberta and the resources that lie within (or under) its territory. Talking about "returning" power over resources to the provinces or directing revenue derived from resources to provincial coffers ignores some historical realities: All provinces in Canada except PEI, NB & NS have had their boundaries extended by the Federal Government and AB and SK were even creations of the Federal Government. To speak about such resources or resource-derived-revenues ignores the duty the Federal Government owes to all Canadians in relation to using and/or deriving benefit from these resources. One option (as discussed above) is to let the provinces have the power and the resources and let citizens move to the resource rich areas if they want the benefits from it. Whether this is the right option may be exactly what Alan wants to discuss. For my part, I think, even if it is decided that this is the best option, the Federal Government has a significant role to play in getting there. I think it also has a duty to explore other options and moreover, I think that other options, including federal intervention are legitimate if it serves Canadians interests.

Alberta certainly got its underground resources free well after it was a province from the Feds. It was transferred by statute in the 1930s.

I guess I'm suggesting that local authority must derive its authority from somewhere. Its not enough that we have an expectation that local authority is going to more accurately reflect local interests, we also have to have some assurance that local authorities will observe the rule of law at the very least but also, in a historical context, operate within Canadian standards so that if I move from SK to AB which is within the same nation-state, local tastes can't trump my citizenship and I get ridden out of town on a rail. Put another way, was not the "Wild West" of American lore not the absence of Federal authority? Was it legitimate to impose Federal authority on the American West? How far am I veering off-topic?

That is right. We are citizens of a country, not of a province - whatever the separatists of Quebec, Alberta or even those unaware separatists of PEI might think.

Hans, I take your point respecting the rule of law. The question comes down to which laws. The easy cases are purely local issues like speed limits and rules for incorporation. There is next to no reason why these are any better made in Ottawa than in the provinces. (As, indeed, for the most part they are.) Criminal law may be a different case. I say may because it is quite possible to surmise a situation in which the criminal law - up to and including the question of capital punishment - could be determined at the provincial level. (We call this model The United States of America.)

We might want to have some Canada wide process rules and we might even want to have a Canada wide Charter of Rights and Freedoms to which any Canadian could appeal to a National Court of Appeal; but virtually everything else could be easily devolved to the provinces.

As to bureaucracy - that is in the nature of government at any level. The advantage of devolving power to the provinces is that the level of bureaucratic growth could be controlled locally and, better still, competitively. People who liked a high level of bureaucracy (with its correspondingly higher taxes) would be free to move to those jurisdictions which saw government as the solution rather than the problem.

The resources question has to be balanced against such other delights as the industrial policy and national tariff invented by none other than the blessed Sir John A. and his heirs. I suspect it is something of a wash. I would note, however, that in the event that the federal government attempted to directly or indirectly (via an emissions quota for example) share the resource wealth of Alberta and British Columbia the chances of Canada surviving as a nation would quickly drop to the neighbourhood of zero. When the NEP was invented Alberta was still relatively easily cowed by Ottawa; this is no longer the case. Fortunately, our current Prime Minister is well aware of this fact.

Funny, though, how Alberta and British Columbia had no issue taking the wealth of the rest of the country when they needed it and likely not when they will need it again one day as always happens. Fortunately, it would be unlikely there would be separation as it is both unlikely to happen and Albertan taste for separatism is far lower than those who would wish for it.

"What leads us to believe that provincial governments will resist bureaucratization and interventionist tendencies supposedly inherent in the federal/central government once the federal government stops intefering in their jurisdictions?"
NOthing. Except people voting with their feet or 'turning the bums out' when they get drunk on their power and start becoming big time bureaucrat minded. Drawing on Californian experience(again): look at how San Fran(and the surrounding Bay Area) is majorly beauracratic and interventionist, and how many have moved out of that area to the inland valley around Sacramento. It gives those who want such policies a place to live where they see what they want and those who don't want that the ability to go elsewhere and have the level of gov't interference they choose.
But if the question is one of is it perfect the answer is no.
(and I disappear on the weekends lately)

"Put another way, was not the "Wild West" of American lore not the absence of Federal authority?"
I cry foul. I get red carded for reductio ad absurdum but this doesn't even merit a yellow? Be fair, Al. That's all I'm asking. If you're going to come down on some for being argumentative you should at least tut-tut when the opposition is equally argumentative.

Not only that, it's inaccurate. The Wild West was put under rule of law how? By vast legions of blue coated Federal troops imposing it? Or by the same type of hyper-empowered individual devoted to order and lawfulness as those who caused the anarchic state to begin with? Did Wyatt Earp do it or was it US Grant at the head of a giant army?

it wasn't the federal gov't at all that brought order and law, but a strong group of individuals and communities(often having to resort to drastic measures outside those allowed by federal rules to boot) who did it---there was no vast army or constabulry to send. The lawfulness of the West resulted out of towns being able to chose how they would, or if they would, persue things. Anti-gun laws--rather illegal to attempt east of the Mississippi---for instance were done hodge podge and worked as often as not. It wasn't some central authority that imposed or created lawfulness in the American West. IF you're going to use it at least get the history right and not turn it into some bromide. The federal law already applied when the territory entered the Union. THe federal will was already there. It just counted for about snot unless there was someone willing to impose the federal or even local will---which is what the Marshalls, often as black hearted as the villians, did. So let's end the paeans to federal power in the American West when the federals did nothing to impart that control or lawfulness at all(even though they took the taxes willingly), okay?

Simply isn't true and a naked ideological twisting of the facts.

(He started it, as that is MOST DEFINITELY an argumentative statement and action.)
"Was it legitimate to impose Federal authority on the American West? How far am I veering off-topic?" LEgitimate? Don't rightly know. I do know that afterwards people enjoyed the protection of the US gov't---like when Pancho Villa came. They also came to resent the interference---there's a reason why interventionism is such a hard sell in Utah, Arizona, Texas, etc. They agree to send their sons to war when called to, to not have tariffs against each other, to pay federal taxes and abide by a certain group of laws, but no more. There are many there still who complain that the 9th Circuit Court broke the rule when it made California abandone a policy by which it would deny illegal immigrants, outside of lifesaving medical care, public funds. That if the federal gov't decided who was and was not a citizen then it should be the federal gov't who should pay for them, out of its budget, instead of the state who had been robbed of the ability to decide who was and who wasn't a legitimate resident of the state and had a right to those monies thereby.
Unalloyed good federal control of the American West it most certainly not. Nobody claims that federal imposition to end racist hiring policies was bad, but the power over ones purse? You bet they're pissed. So is it good or bad, playing devils advocate, that the federal gov't takes more money than it gives back to CA and forces the state to pay for people it cannot afford to? Just askin'.

<i>Simply isn't true and a naked ideological twisting of the facts.</i>

I think it was a question followed by a:<blockquote class="smalltext">Was it legitimate to impose Federal authority on the American West? How far am I veering off-topic?</blockquote>Even though Hans has a past in Heuvelton NY, I think that is not too far off. Are you not taking insult where there is actual inquiry? Frankly, I know nothing about the area being discussed and find it a useful illustration of an aspect of Federalism. <p>You have done well in response but if you are right, can you explain <i>Deadwood</i> to me. That show is nasty.

Easy. I think I was asking a question. And I didn't really know the answers. The information you provide shows that the truth is much more nuanced than the term "Wild West" implies. But that is also my point: I think in the text of your response you talk about people being pleased with the use of federal authority and being displeased with it. Nothing is totally black and white and (to use another cliche) where do you draw the line between federal vs. provincial authority.

"So let's end the paeans to federal power in the American West when the federals did nothing to impart that control or lawfulness at all(even though they took the taxes willingly), okay?"

Asking questions is not writing paeans, so take it easy, ry. Moreover, I was aksing questions in order to illustrate points in relation to the Canadian context. More moreover, even though I may use American examples (or caricatures of American situations, even), it is not evidence of America-hating. I don't even think American federalism is a bad example of Americanism. I understand your feelings though alot of Canadians have a knee-jerk bias against anything American. But yuo'll not find that in any of my comments. I am actually very pro-America.

"Simply isn't true and a naked ideological twisting of the facts."

Again, take it easy, re-read what I said and don't throw absurd accusations around. I am earnestly asking questions.

I think I better move on to the Senate GP......

"You have done well in response but if you are right, can you explain Deadwood to me. That show is nasty." Having not had HBO in a decade? Not really. But then I couldn't explain how 'The Adventures of Brisco County Jr.' related to reality of the Old West either.

LArgely though, context. Hans seemingly was argumentifying the discussion with the infamous 'devils advocate' thing. There was an implication made by the questions(they actually seemed to be leading one toward robust central gov't as a good thing IMO), which I see as intended to lead to a particular conclusion. That isn't discussion, thats rhetoric(in the old school meaning of rhetoric). And we aren't allowed to employ rhetoric, desu neh?

I didn't see it as Anti-Americanism or such. I saw it as a pro-central gov't short cut bit. They were leading questions, Hans. I know you often run into insecure Americans who take everything as an insult to their country(I went after Al because he made specific statements), but that's not the case here. This was done strictly in the context of the robust fedral vs robust province discussion. No more. No less.