BitWhys wrote:
I'm no expert on it but from what I understand the BNA has holes in it big enough to drive a day care through. The Feds can mandate anything that isn't explicitly relegated to the provinces in the act, they just can't run the show on a lot of it. Good work if you can get, I suppose.
This ain't the States, where the Feds are pretty well limited to things military, and not all such things at that.
Although I well understand your point refering to "holes" within the BNA I think you misjudge the nuances of the document. The Feds have a number of reserve powers; reservation, disallowance (which many feel have fallen in abeyance) as well as the right to uptake any right or new power which is not listed in the act (for the life of me I can't remember what the proper term of this power is). This was done on purpose so that the federal government would always have superiority over the provinces. However, social srevices are the exclusive purvey of provinces under section 91 except for the military, and Native Indians. One of the biggest problems for the provinces is that the Feds have the right to tax anything whereas the provinces' right in this matter is much more limited. Originally this was not so much of a problem as social services of which provincial governments bore primary responsibility were handled by charities and churches. As provinces became more entwined with social services provincial costs boomed while revenues were (are) still mandated through a 140 year old document. My point being that federal intervention in affairs of provincial nature whether it be the millenium scholarship program or Canada health act are more a result of the so-called fiscal imbalance than a "traditional power grab". The fact of the matter is that a number of provinces, Alta being the exception, need federal money to fund provincial programs. The feds have been very astute in recent decades in ensuring that while provincial "empire building" and services have dramatically increased since the Second World War the funding to pay for it all has cme from Ottawa who boldly proclaim the fact during election time.
In my opinion I think it is a tough balancing act. Macdonald rightly and with foresight ensured that the Dominion government would always have supremacy over the provinces through taxation, reserve powers and the rigt to enforce any new powers or technology which may arise leading to a strong and stable country. Having said that there is no question that in a federation as diverse and geographically dispersed as Canada regional autonomy must be given a central role in the governance of this land. Throughout the last decade it has become painfully obvious to most political observers that provinces do not have the taxation system necessary to fund their statuatory social obligations and are dependent upon the feds to "top up" their treasuries. Indeed, in this past decade of good economic times neither Quebec nor Ontario, nor PEI have posted a surplus while the Federal government is posting record windfalls.
The deabte over a centralised or decentralised system of government is as old as the country itself. I think most Canadians want some national programs while also retaining local autonomy, the question merely is; what dose of each? Provinces have often acted as our check upon majority federal governments and I for one think it important that they retian this valued role, this requires them to have political leadership and independence from Ottawa. The massive cuts to provincial transfer payment in the early years of Chretien's premiership has made me conclude that the best way to guarantee stable healthcare funding is to allow the provinces the ability to pay for healthcare through an increased tax base. I think this in the long run would provide not only for better healthcare but more accountable funding and services.
Bitwhys wrote:
This ain't the States, where the Feds are pretty well limited to things military, and not all such things at that.
[/quote]
Times have changed down South. Over the last 140 years Canadian provinces have gained more autonomy while American states have gained less vis a vis their federal governments! Although if one looked only at budget expenditures it might appear that the US Federal government is only responsible for a few things military in recent decades they have been expanding mercilessly into states' jurisdictions. Medicare and Medicaid are both federal programs, Or how about the "No child left behind Act" (sic) of good ol' G.W. Bush which is an education initiative. Then there is the Environmental Protection Agency and a host of others too numerous to name. My point being that the American government provides a host of social services.
