tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13194839.post113938154095674514..comments2023-06-30T01:39:28.918-07:00Comments on B.C. Policy Perspectives: Federalism and Public Policy II: Is Fiscal Imbalance Something to be "Fixed"?Mark Crawfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11904245045490682686noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13194839.post-1147219288754996962006-05-09T17:01:00.000-07:002006-05-09T17:01:00.000-07:00Thanks for your comment,Curiosity!It strikes me as...Thanks for your comment,Curiosity!<BR/><BR/>It strikes me as a fair comment, especially when one considers what former leaders such as Mike Harris and Preston Manning said about health care reform once they had left politics (and now that Preston is said to covet Ralph Klein's job...), to say nothing of what Stephen Harper had to say about single-tier health care when he was a policy wonk with the National Citizens' Coalition...it could be a Dark Age ahead.Mark Crawfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11904245045490682686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13194839.post-1146852499555118552006-05-05T11:08:00.000-07:002006-05-05T11:08:00.000-07:00The issue is Harper's gameplan to substantially re...The issue is Harper's gameplan to substantially reduce the powers of the central government in Canada by devolving those powers on the provinces. If Harper is successful, Canada will become a balkanized nation of bickering premiers, with no common standards uniting Canadians as a nation, and with the Prime Minister sitting in the booth closest to the kitchen, with his hands tucked under his seat, doing nothing.<BR/><BR/>Harper and his New Tories aim at a massive transfer of power (legislative, financial) to the provinces, through a deal cut in smoky rooms, and over a policy which has not been tested by being debated vigorously during an election campaign. Harper is aiming at a stealth-change of how Canada functions, agreed to by premiers and him, without the voters of the provinces or the voters of Canada being involved in such a decision. It is akin to a Meech Lake Accord without requiring Canadians to vote on it. <BR/><BR/>Is this process of Harper's democractic? Not by a long shot.<BR/><BR/>Have Canadians agreed to these dramatic changes in the federal / provincial structure? Not by a long shot.<BR/><BR/>Will Harper open his dealings to public debate? Never – he does not agree with his decisions being debated by voter representatives.<BR/><BR/>Harper is aiming at making Ontario the "bad guy", and getting the other provinces to gang up on Ontario's Premier. He is hoping to stampede Ontario into agreeing to a deal, so that Harper can then go the country for an election, hoping to win more seats in Quebec and gain a majority government. <BR/><BR/>As Chantal Hebert wrote: "Nothing would do more to accelerate Harper's plan to emerge as the default federalist option in Quebec than a campaign that found the federal Liberals and the Bloc Québécois on the wrong side of a deal with Charest on the fiscal imbalance."<BR/><BR/>Harper's stampede tactics (similar to those used by Bush in his deceptive entry into the war in Iraq) have been successful so far – he suckered Duceppe and Layton into supporting a vote of no confidence in the Liberal government. If it worked once, why not try again?<BR/><BR/>What can Ontario's Premier, Dalton McGuinty, do given the by now obvious strategy of Harper?<BR/><BR/>Simple. He can take a stand on principle: that such decisions should be made by the people. McGuinty can make the whole backroom-dealing process transparent by simply stating right now that he requires two things to take place: (1) that all meetings of Premiers on this subject, and any meeting he has with Harper, be open to the public, and televised; and (2) that he will not agree to any deal unless it has been put to the voters of Ontario through a plebescite.<BR/><BR/>This will immediately make the whole process of nation-changing more democratic, put pressure on the Premiers of all provinces to consider voters as well and perhaps adopt similar plebescites, and relieve McGuinty of any pressure to rush into a deal "in the interests of Canada" (as John Tory has tried to frame it).<BR/><BR/>So, Dalton: strike a blow for democracy. Call for transparency in meetings of Premiers on this "backroom Meech Lake Deal", and have Ontario voters decide the issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13194839.post-1144982208703322302006-04-13T19:36:00.000-07:002006-04-13T19:36:00.000-07:00I have been following a site now for almost 2 year...I have been following a site now for almost 2 years and I have found it to be both reliable and profitable. They post daily and their stock trades have been beating<BR/>the indexes easily.<BR/><BR/>Take a look at Wallstreetwinnersonline.com<BR/><BR/>RickJAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13194839.post-1140595444164007832006-02-22T00:04:00.000-08:002006-02-22T00:04:00.000-08:00me: Thanks for your comment! "Fiscal Federalism" ...me: Thanks for your comment! "Fiscal Federalism" is a notoriously complex and arcane subject. I had intended to read all of my old books on the subject, as well as the entirety of the Loubier Committee proceedings, before writing this, but my books are in storage in Prince George and I didn't have time. If I can find the time, I'll revise and re-post this column. What I think we can say is this:<BR/><BR/>On the one hand, Canada's experience with federal-provincial cost-sharing shows that it is bad public policy to have the provinces running a program like health care while the federal government is committed to paying a share of its costs with no power to administer the programs and ensure their cost-effectiveness.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, the provinces can be faulted for making unrealistic demands on the federal purse and for not recognizing the economic rationale and constitutional legitimacy of the federal spending power.Mark Crawfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11904245045490682686noreply@blogger.com