Recently, I argued that the Senate is necessary since provinces can't adequately keep a federal majority government in check. However Danny Williams might prove me wrong given his influence in a minority setting. I don't care for his tactics but I have to admire the results, even if they're causing problems for the Liberal Party.
The skirmish between the Newfoundland MPs and Ignatieff, which resulted in the interim leader's acquiescence to the east coaster's demands to vote independently on the budget, is part of a larger debate on how Canada should be governed. Since the rise of Quebec Separatism and Western Alienation we've had an enduring debate between the tenets of centralization and decentralization when it comes to our federation. The Liberal Party has embodied this most with deep rifts between the so-called Trudeau/Chretien Liberals and their advocacy for a strong federal government versus the Turner/Martin Liberals who favour asymmetrical federalism.
Ignatieff's proposal to recognize Quebec as a nation in 2006 set off yet another round of debate about how much power and respect should be bestowed on the provinces. Ignoring the clarity of the constitution on what level of power each order of government has, the underlying debate is whether power allocation is a zero-sum proposition or can be something else. I suspect Sir John A. Macdonald and Georges-Etienne Cartier thought our federal arrangement was a way towards a stronger Canada, but along the way that message seems to have been lost in a "winner take all" political climate. As I argued once before, the creative tension of our federal-provincial relations has worked to a point but is rife with problems; looking at and even trying new solutions is not a bad thing.
I have my reservations about how this compromise will impact Ignatieff's ability to lead and how it will embolden Premiere Williams to pursue his wants even more aggressively. Personally, I prefer a unified message from a party because then you get a consistent line between what you vote for and what you get (as opposed to the US Congress where it's anybody's guess due to the "clientelistic" nature of the House). However the concerns of greater regional discord are a little exaggerated, since we've had that since before confederation. The questions now are whether Canada still has a place for a big tent party like the Liberals (or are we headed towards coalitions of regional parties?) and whether Ignatieff can create a productive relationship with the provinces that doesn't get bogged down in power struggles.
The skirmish between the Newfoundland MPs and Ignatieff, which resulted in the interim leader's acquiescence to the east coaster's demands to vote independently on the budget, is part of a larger debate on how Canada should be governed. Since the rise of Quebec Separatism and Western Alienation we've had an enduring debate between the tenets of centralization and decentralization when it comes to our federation. The Liberal Party has embodied this most with deep rifts between the so-called Trudeau/Chretien Liberals and their advocacy for a strong federal government versus the Turner/Martin Liberals who favour asymmetrical federalism.
Ignatieff's proposal to recognize Quebec as a nation in 2006 set off yet another round of debate about how much power and respect should be bestowed on the provinces. Ignoring the clarity of the constitution on what level of power each order of government has, the underlying debate is whether power allocation is a zero-sum proposition or can be something else. I suspect Sir John A. Macdonald and Georges-Etienne Cartier thought our federal arrangement was a way towards a stronger Canada, but along the way that message seems to have been lost in a "winner take all" political climate. As I argued once before, the creative tension of our federal-provincial relations has worked to a point but is rife with problems; looking at and even trying new solutions is not a bad thing.
I have my reservations about how this compromise will impact Ignatieff's ability to lead and how it will embolden Premiere Williams to pursue his wants even more aggressively. Personally, I prefer a unified message from a party because then you get a consistent line between what you vote for and what you get (as opposed to the US Congress where it's anybody's guess due to the "clientelistic" nature of the House). However the concerns of greater regional discord are a little exaggerated, since we've had that since before confederation. The questions now are whether Canada still has a place for a big tent party like the Liberals (or are we headed towards coalitions of regional parties?) and whether Ignatieff can create a productive relationship with the provinces that doesn't get bogged down in power struggles.
2 comments:
I don't know if the days of "big tent" parties is past but if so, one of the major contributing factors is certainly the current "money for votes" funding of political parties implemented by Chretien and supported (initially) but the Conservatives. It is this funding model that keeps the Bloc in big bucks and will let over a million dollars flow to the Green Party. As they get more funding, the incentive to stay apart from the big tent parties will increase and the possibility of fringe elements being folded into the mix will decrease. Currently there are 4 major left of centre parties, all supported primarily by the taxpayer. Without debating the timing and method of introduction, I do think we need to seriously look at Harper's proposal of reducing or eliminating the money for vote model - more parties will start up or splinter off and we will end up with more extremest views all around and less successful centrist big tent parties.
If the supreme kangaroo court of canukistan hadn’t contravene the constitution where by all of the provinces are supposed to own, control and be the primary beneficiary of their own non-renewable resources we wouldn't of needed the Atlantic Accord and non of this would be an issue.
Equality or Exit!
The Canadian confederation is a sham. It is nothing more than. Tyranny of the majority, Per Capita Colonialism, Democratic Discrimination by all of the national proxy parties of the majority ON/QU against the minority, Reverse robin hood. Steal from the poor minority and give to the vote rich majority. And those are the nice terms. Don't give us your crap about feed us please on a per capita basis NL'ians have contributed four times as much as the next nearest province.
EQUALITY OR EXIT!
Post a Comment