I think that's true -- so long as they think it will get them more votes.

There are two drivers behind this:

1. Harper is in the back pocket of the oil industry (this is a quote, on good authority). More powers for the provinces means more powers for Alberta, more powers for Alberta mean a backhoe on every wetland and a pickup truck in every garage.

2. Every politician since Trudeau has longed to stick their pudgy little fingers into the Constitution, because being a Visionary is cool in that crowd. Also, you'll get higher speakers' fees for keynote addresses to Boards of Directors.

3. Canada's New Government is flailing and they know it. Despite Dion's fantastic lack of anything, the Conservatives aren't moving in the polls. They need Quebec votes just as much as the Liberals needed Quebec votes (hence the new sponsorship scandal with Conservative ridings getting priority funding, la de dah).

4. Um... Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Do you want to tell us who this good authority is? Otherwise, it's just "some guy".

For the record: I promise that if Stephen Harper says he's going to open the constitution[*] for modification, I'm sitting out the election. He and his pack of mutes can go frack themselves.

[*] besides the usual bilateral tinkering, such as changed the status of Newfoundland schools

I see no reason to require the spilling of beans but would note that Renee is our local NDP candidate which ads to both sides of the range of confidence one may have. <p>That being said, I would beg you not to sit out but to got somewhere seeking some place. I am in a similar boat in that, as has been stated before, I have alsways voted NDP and do support the local candidate as an excellent candidate (as all candidates who comment here undoubtedly are), I do think the party's position on Afghanistan is entirely wrongheaded and not grounded in Canadian leftie tradition. This is not a calling out of Renee but simply a fact based on my disagreement with the central party policy.

I'm a sitter outer, or rather a ballot spoiler. Tis my nature.

If Renee is in your member, all the more reason to spill the beans. Just get up in Parliament and name names and enjoy immunity. Unless by in the "back pocket" one means "agrees with and supports" in which case count me in. Cheques and cash accepted!

Alan, you're not the only traditionally-has-voted-NDPer to express that sentiment, there is are a lot who take issue over the wording of the various party resolutions. But the actual wording is interesting in that it's not entirely represented in the phrasing used by Jack Layton. Further deponent sayeth not (at least, not without some papers in front of me to make sure I'm not completely out to lunch).

David: It wasn't told to me in a private conversation, there were lots of other people there, but I'm not sure that it was said with the intention of having it blabbed about the 'blogosphere. After all, who knows what kind of lawsuits might crop up? But I can say this much: it was a leading Canadian public intellectual relating a conversation with a Federal cabinet minister. He was quite clear about the Honourable Member's exact wording.

(after sentiment there should be an AND... and there are also a lot within the party who take issue, etc.)

Raulston Saul? Tiger Williams? Ernie Coombs? No, he passed away.

And David, I'm not elected... yet... :)

"teacher demanded"

See, you need to show your work. Otherwise the answers may be considered tainted and not awarded full marks.

I'm with David. I do not want the Constitutional debates re-opened unless we are going for a winner-takes-all cage match that includes a Triple-E senate, property rights added to the Charter, and increased accountability measures aimed at the senior judiciary and political appointees. Two visions of federalism enter, one vision leaves! If we're going to change the thing and go through years of debate, go big or go home.

But if it's to add MORE Quebec nationhood stuff, then forget it. Got those two T-shirts already and it wasn't that exciting a trip.

Heh. Honestly, my opinion is that no good can come of any constitutional change: our problems, whatever they may be, aren't constitutional. Yes, I would love to see property rights in there but it's probably more important to live in a society that respects property rights [*] because that's the real source of rights ends up in the end being people in the system believing in them. I'm very happy with Harper's deferment to the provinces on issues properly (yes, I see you over there Al) provincial. I know this riles a lot of progressives, but listening every day CBC call in shows with people calling for various "national strategies" on this and that (recycling, in one particular instance) makes me happy with a lack thereof.

[*] and it really isn't that bad here.

It's not so much the abdication of Federal jurisdiction it's the lack of any plan for the abdication of Federal jurisdiction. There is an antipathy towards Canada that goes through the current crop that is tied with their unwarranted and certainly unearned self-admiration that is a dangerous combination. I am with Chris, though: all in. What are the provinces going to swap in any deal - health care makes sense. There is nothing culturally unique about a kidney disorder or a drug plan. Harper, of course, is not thinking about that. It's all fire sale for the Provincialist Party.

Not at all (re: the fire sale). I _want_ my governments not to be doing stuff -- feck the grand plans and visions: that should be at a provincial level. I'll note along this line of thought that Ontario is prototypically bad: people like Miller and McCallion constantly complaining for federal money they're never going to get, even though it makes more sense to be asking the province for the money and for the province to be giving it. Why don't they ask the province for it? Ah, well maybe it's just politics.

An "all in" for the constitution will be a crapshoot with loaded dice. The provinces _expect_ the PM to be headwaiter at the table of free food. When Quebec comes to the table with the top of their bottomless list of "historical demands and grievances", how long do you think it'll be before either the rhetoric gets out of control or everyone else asks for the same -- i.e. the federal government pays and butts out. Or if equalization comes up for grab while Ontario slides into have-not status, do you not think Alberta - "our provincial overlords" - may start acting the spoiler when they question why they're paying in $5000 / head to take orders.

(etc) it's intractable, and none of us will wake up better off the next day

But the reality is that Canada was created by government and is largely as a nation defined by that. Anything libertarian/property rightish is just revisionist thinking and SDA-level wet dreaming. Government as a whole will always do as much here or there - it is really just a matter of rearranging deck chairs. But you will agree that if we are going to have state funded health care that is makes sense to have that as a Federal program.

And if Harper tries this, I will be tattooing Danny Williams' face to my chest as I expect he will be the voice of reason in any opening up of the can of worms.

1. Quebec, the Tories, and the Constitution -- totally old news.

But yes, a fine reason to vote against them if you really, really don't ever want to go there again.

2. Property rights -- there's definitely a tradition of it outside the SDA crowd, unless you want to be reading the Bill of Rights out of Canadian history. But it isn't necessary right now to have it in the Charter, given that the best defence of property rights is an aware & engaged populace.

3. I rather like the idea of weakening Ottawa, except in the areas of a national government's necessary competencies -- monetary policy, military, foreign policy, etc. Why? The lab of federalism. (Which you too have an appreciation for, Alan -- admit it.) 'Tisn't historical in Canada -- I think the JCPC was terrible in how they interpreted a centralizing constitution as a decentralizing document -- but I think it's better, policy-wise.

***

And hey, Canadian politics has been small ball for too long. Let's have another constitutional debate. :p

Property righters are fringers in the GWN even though their rights, practically speaking, are now better protected than in the south - aside from expropriation's tougher tests, could you imagine the staid Canadian banking system allowing itself to be compromised by prime mortgages. I agree that the public taste for what is right is better but that is expressed in the practices that are also accepted under the law.

I think the problem of play acting at being Founding Fathers is that the small jurisdictions are not the wealthy ones now. That is one of the successes of the US path of history - the new was ripe for the picking while the old had their storehouses full enough. Can't play at that now. So maybe there has to be Atlantic Union as well as Quebec nationhood being included as well as national health.

The funniest thing is I bet Harper is too thick to not fumble into the crap storm that awaits.

Many people are wrong -- cf Paul Well's book -- about Harper being a fumbler. We'll see. I've pretty well come to the conclusion he offers nothing to me, but I understand the outlierness of my political opinions.

"But the reality is that Canada was created by government and is largely as a nation defined by that." If you mean governments, perhaps you are right, maybe. Struggles over provincial federal privilege were characteristic of this country from before Day 1, so Canada is not defined as a nation by it's federalness.

Tell that to Joe Howe and the majority of Nova Scotians who didn't want Confederation. If Provincial rights were all that powerful from the beginning there would be no beginning.

I called in an air strike. We'll see if it shows up. BTW: you mispelled "Rspect"

"outwit O'Malley"

No, I underspelled it. That was a part of the overall test. Results were interesting for this phase.

"Re- aggressor"

Bah to province's rights! I demand a return to two Assemblies, each equal in power (because the English didn't want the larger and more powerful French province overwhelming them.) Good times.

Brilliant. Here's a better one though -- be it resolved, Canada's diversity is expressed through it's regions. Heh.

Canada has no regions. Only provinces.

What? There's the region with the mountains, the region with all the fields, the region with all the rock, the region with all the snow, the part with all the French-speaking people, and the region with all the fish. And Toronto, which exists in a strange dimensional shift caused by the gravity of the Great Lakes and the weight of all the complaining.