Asymmetric federalism and the NDP

35 posts / 0 new

Mon, 2011-11-28 19:22

Winston

Northern Shoveler wrote:

KenS wrote:

Assymetric federalism is a principle. It is a fact on the ground that it exists to a significant degree, however much there may be proposals for more or less.

Nobody here is proposing ANY changes to the basics of federalism- let alone constitutional changes.

You don't want me to argue constitutional principles in this thread and then you do a throw away line like that to dismiss me. Lets just agree to disagree on whether proposals to make the country more asymmetrical than it already is would change the country to a significant degree.

You want to run on buzz words like asymmetrical federalism then kiss the party goodbye and watch them plummet in the polls as they explain to Canadians that they are not really changing the basics of federalism it is only giving Quebec more asymmetrical powers. I actually think you agree that this issue is death to the NDP and am trying to figure out what problem you are having with that concept. If you don't agree then so be it. I am sure voters in Canada will be fascinated by the debates when the candidates start laying out their dreams for constitutional renewal.

Actually, I don't think that sticking to current party policy is deadly for the party; quite the opposite AS LONG AS WE ELECT A LEADER WHO TRULY UNDERSTANDS THE QUEBEC REALITY IN CANADA, and as long as that person is able to navigate the nuanced messaging that has to result in both official languages, as Jack, Mulcair, and McGrath, Levigne, Topp et al were able to do last election.

I think most english Canadians, like me, are coming to understand that the Québec reality is a unique one in Canada and that if we want to maintain a functioning federation we have to acknowledge at least some of the nationalist aspirations of Québec. The truth of it is, if Scotland can be an independent country, so can Québec. We can deal with this through an acknowledgment of the assymetry that already exists in Canada, or we can be antagonistic, put our heads in the sand and maintain a kneejerk Trudeauvian view on things.

Québecers chose to engage with Canada again last election by voting NDP, but I harbour no doubts that if we choose to renege on our promises, they will abandon us en masse - not for the Liberals or Tories, but for the Bloc. I also am certain that the faith Québec placed in us probably represents one the last opportunities we have as Canadians to keep this country together, and it is our responsibility to ensure that we make good on it.

Does that mean reopening the constitution in 2015? Certainly not, but Jack was right back in the spring when he said that maintaining a constitution indefinitely to which Quebec is not a signatory is untenable. We do need to seek those "winning conditions for Québec in Canada."

As for the future of the party, I think we've got it made, unless we ourselves screw it up. As I see it, there are only two ways we do that:

1) Selecting a leader that does not understand Québec and its place in Canada (or is unable to articulate it in both official languages); or

2) (As my Liberal friends longingly put it on the weekend), "selecting the next Audrey McLaughlin."

Issues Pages:

NDP

Regions:

Mon, 2011-11-28 19:30

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Winston wrote:

Québecers chose to engage with Canada again last election by voting NDP, but I harbour no doubts that if we choose to renege on our promises, they will abandon us en masse -

I didn't follow the campaign in the French media so please tell me what promises where made to the Quebec people. I heard Jack make no promises and in fact cleverly and studiously avoiding every attempt to be engaged on the specifics of what Quebec will get if an NDP government was elected.

So please explain what was promised and please provide some quotes.

Mon, 2011-11-28 19:38

Winston

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Winston wrote:

Québecers chose to engage with Canada again last election by voting NDP, but I harbour no doubts that if we choose to renege on our promises, they will abandon us en masse -

I didn't follow the campaign in the French media so please tell me what promises where made to the Quebec people. I heard Jack make no promises and in fact cleverly and studiously avoiding every attempt to be engaged on the specifics of what Quebec will get if an NDP government was elected.

So please explain what was promised and please provide some quotes.

Here's 8 pages of quotes (even translated into English).

Sherbrooke Declaration

Mon, 2011-11-28 21:41

Debater

Asymmetrical federalism is something that federalist leaders are supposed to largely oppose, not support.

Historically, Canadians have expected their Prime Ministers (and leaders of the Official Opposition) to be in favor of a strong, unified Canada without one region being given vastly different powers. It is important to recognize and respect Quebec's differences, but not in the extreme way in which the NDP is currently doing so by adopting almost all of the PQ and BQ policies. If it continues to go down this road, they not only risk getting the media to go after them (as it did in the case of Turmel's previous support of the PQ/BQ) but it gives the Liberals an opportunity to reemerge as the main federal alternative to the Conservatives.

Tue, 2011-11-29 00:10

Winston

Debater wrote:

Asymmetrical federalism is something that federalist leaders are supposed to largely oppose, not support.

"Supposed to"? According to whom? I think it is rather clear that the strategy of polarizing people between staunch "federalists" and "separatists" as the Liberals and the PQ/BQ have done for over a generation has been an epic failure. Since 1993 Québec has not been engaged whatsoever in the governance of Canada, with the BQ winning a majority of the seats in the Commons in every election until last May. We nearly lost the last referendum in 1995.

And all through this, we have been governed by the right-wing policies of Paul Martin, who oversaw the evisceration of national standards in programs and the elimination of a federal role in enforcing them. More recently, we have had to contend with Stephen Harper's promotion of Canada whose only role is to put the Queen's mug up everywhere and pay lip service to the military.

Time for something different...

Quote:

Historically, Canadians have expected their Prime Ministers (and leaders of the Official Opposition) to be in favor of a strong, unified Canada without one region being given vastly different powers. It is important to recognize and respect Quebec's differences, but not in the extreme way in which the NDP is currently doing so by adopting almost all of the PQ and BQ policies. If it continues to go down this road, they not only risk getting the media to go after them (as it did in the case of Turmel's previous support of the PQ/BQ) but it gives the Liberals an opportunity to reemerge as the main federal alternative to the Conservatives.

Historically, the Liberals governed Great Britain and the Bull Moose Party reigned in the United States. Looking further back, at the end of the Ming Dynasty, China was ruled by an army of 70,000 eunuch bureaucrats. My how times have changed...

I think there is a consensus in Francophone Québec that the status quo is not what they see for Québec, and an increasing acceptance in English Canada that that's okay.

I freely admit that I could be wrong: the Liberals may roar back to the 74/75 seats they held in Québec in the early Trudeau years, and China may once again be ruled by castrated technocrats, but Peter C. Newman and I both doubt it.

PS: Debater, I hope you do not take my slightly sarcastic tone to be hostility. In fact I am happy to be engaging with you in a conversation that does not involve snarkily gloating (one way or another) over who's got the biggest poll . . . results. And I do agree that the NDP position will be problematic to some, and may present a small but real opening to the Liberals in their quest for relevance.

Tue, 2011-11-29 00:34

ghoris

Debater wrote:

Asymmetrical federalism is something that federalist leaders are supposed to largely oppose, not support.

Historically, Canadians have expected their Prime Ministers (and leaders of the Official Opposition) to be in favor of a strong, unified Canada without one region being given vastly different powers.

John Turner and Paul Martin, aided and abetted by the likes of Raymond Garneau, Liza Frulla, Francis Fox and Dennis Dawson, were some of the biggest cheerleaders for asymmetrical federalism in the last 30 years.

People in glass houses, etc.

Tue, 2011-11-29 11:02

Doug

There's a history in Canada of different provinces having somewhat different powers, even aside from Quebec. Policing in Ontario is almost entirely provincial, in BC much of it is provided by the RCMP. The federal government has delegated jurisdiction over and revenue from offshore oil extraction specifically to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The federal government has involved itself much more in agriculture in some provinces as opposed to others. Grow wheat in Saskatchewan and, for now, the Wheat Board is a part of your life. Grow wheat in Ontario and it isn't. I could go on, but the point is that the relationship between the federal government and the provinces isn't strictly what it says in the Constitution.

Tue, 2011-11-29 23:11

Peter3

Assymetric federalism is a fact in Canada and has been since day 1. That's why PEI has 4 seats in Parliament.

It has worked reasonably well and reflects the complex nature of the federation. There have been proposals to make it more (Triple E senate proposals) or less (see any of the various "no special status for Quebec" posts on this subject on Babble) assymetric, but none seem likely to go anywhere, anytime soon.

Thu, 2011-12-01 20:36

Gaian

Sherbrooke Declaration (link at post #2)

What percentage of New Democrats outside of Quebec, I wonder, understand the implications of this for Quebec members of the party - THE party representing the WORKING people of both founding cultures?

Thu, 2011-12-01 20:48

#10

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Thu, 2011-12-01 22:00

#11

Debater

Winston wrote:

Since 1993 Québec has not been engaged whatsoever in the governance of Canada, with the BQ winning a majority of the seats in the Commons in every election until last May.

I think many people would disagree that Quebec was not engaged in the governance of Canada since 1993. Canada had a Prime Minister from Quebec from 1993 to 2003. His name was Jéan Chrétien. Remember him? It also had many Liberal MP's from Quebec during that time period and Chrétien increased his support in Quebec from 19 seats in 1993 to 29 seats in 1997 to 36 seats in 2000. And most significantly, Jean Chrétien beat the BQ in the popular vote in 2000. More Quebecers voted for Chrétien than Duceppe in his final election (44% for Chrétien, 40% for Duceppe), and they were practically tied in seats. Therefore, the NDP appears to be trying to re-write history by claiming it is the only party that has represented Quebec in recent years.

[/quote]

Winston wrote:

I think there is a consensus in Francophone Québec that the status quo is not what they see for Québec, and an increasing acceptance in English Canada that that's okay.

I freely admit that I could be wrong: the Liberals may roar back to the 74/75 seats they held in Québec in the early Trudeau years, and China may once again be ruled by castrated technocrats, but Peter C. Newman and I both doubt it.

I think most Canadians expect a Prime Minister and leader of the Official Opposition to be strong federalists eg. that they will not support more language laws in Quebec or call for things like the abolition of the Clarity Act which would allow Quebec to separate based on a trick question on the basis of one vote. If the NDP continues to support anti-federalist policies such as those, it could be a knockout blow that the Liberals (or Conservatives) could land on it in the next election.

Peter C. Newman isn't particularly relevant to most Canadians, but I certainly agree with the part that the Liberals will not win a massive majority of seats in Quebec again in the near future.

Thu, 2011-12-01 22:02

#12

Unionist

Debater wrote:
I certainly agree with the part that the Liberals will not win a massive majority of seats in Quebec again in the near future.

Why so pessimistic? They almost tricked their way into the hearts of Quebecers with sponsorships etc. Keep the faith, bro - Liberals will lie, steal, and cheat their way to victory again! It's cynics like you that hold them back.

Thu, 2011-12-01 22:17

#13

Debater

Unionist, let's not tar all Liberals with the corruption brush. There were a small group of corrupt people who engaged in the sponsorship scandal, and they are the ones who brought down the party in Quebec. Until that happened, the Liberal Party was on the verge of eclipsing the BQ. The Libs had beaten them in the vote in 2000, then picked up 2 seats in by-elections, and Martin was ahead of Duceppe after Chretien left.

Therefore, with a new leader and a new vision there is the potential for Liberal growth again in Quebec, but realistically there will not be a massive majority of seats again in Quebec for the Liberals (or the Conservatives) and probably not the BQ or the NDP again. Those huge majorities in Quebec only come once in a generation now. I think the pie will be more evenly-divided next time. The BQ may be able to come back up to official party status with 12+ seats and the Libs can regain their lost Montreal seats and perhaps some new ones. The Cons will remain pretty much out of the equation until Harper leaves. If they find a red tory to replace Harper like ex-NB Premier Bernard Lord, the Cons may be able to make some ground in Quebec. But that's a big question mark at this point.

Thu, 2011-12-01 22:23

#14

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater, on what do you base your conclusions that there won't be a massive majority of seats for the NDP again in Quebec? What makes you think Quebecers are ready to vote Liberal again? You make plenty of statements but don't back them up with much more then I think or probably. You think its just history? Do you really think that people don't remember things, and can't think for themselves. Come on, make a real argument for once. How do you know the NDP leader won't grow into the job as Jack did.

This is the thing that I don't like about you. You just make statements, don't quote studies, or stats, or writers or anything. You just tell us and then expect us to believe it. Ok, if that is how you guys see the world, I would say that suits me fine. It means you haven't learned anything from this election and it only approves the NDP's chances at majority government.

Thu, 2011-12-01 22:27

#15

Debater

I quote all sorts of things and am very accurate in my numbers. Did you see the specific seat and popular vote numbers I just quoted above for all of Chrétien's elections?

But I have a day job and I don't desire to post here every day with massive amounts of doctoral research on everything I say. Of course a lot of what I said above about the next election is speculation. That's half of what a political discussion forum is about.

However, in case you didn't see it, Chantal Hébert just said on 'At Issue' tonight that it looks like the NDP is losing support in Quebec, is not very visible and predicted that it is looking at a loss of seats in the next election.

Who knows whether it will turn out to be true or not. It's just discussion at this point. You are free to disagree obviously.

Fri, 2011-12-02 09:35

#16

Gaian

quote: "Peter C. Newman isn't particularly relevant to most Canadians"

Certainly not those Canadians for whom reading isn't particularly their choice of pastime in a busy life, who want (need) their information pre-digested, like nestlings, even while ruling on the reading preferences of Canadians. Greatly prefer Liberal hacks.

Fri, 2011-12-02 17:28

#17

Debater

Arthur Cramer wrote:

What makes you think Quebecers are ready to vote Liberal again?

I never said they were. Do you read the posts fully before commenting on them, because you seem to put words there that I haven't written. Please show me where I said Quebec was going to vote Liberal in the next election? All I said was that they have the potential for a modest recovery in Montreal by winning back their traditional seats and possibly a couple of others. I predicted modest gains - that is the total opposite of predicting the whole province would vote Liberal.

How did you misinterpret what I wrote so disproportionately? I don't understand.

Sat, 2011-12-03 00:14

#18

algomafalcon

I am 100% opposed to any and all forms of asymmetric federalism.

However, that doesn't mean I would oppose a total and complete revamping of Canadian federalism to accomodate greater de-centralism, perhaps along the lines of a "four nations" federation. (Quebec, West, Ontario and Atlantic).

Asymmetric by definition means that one part is given special priivelges over the others, probably while the others are paying the bill.

We should go for a "new federalism" or tell Quebec to "pack their bags" and wish them well in their independence.

Sat, 2011-12-03 01:26

#19

Winston

algomafalcon wrote:

I am 100% opposed to any and all forms of asymmetric federalism.

However, that doesn't mean I would oppose a total and complete revamping of Canadian federalism to accomodate greater de-centralism, perhaps along the lines of a "four nations" federation. (Quebec, West, Ontario and Atlantic).

Asymmetric by definition means that one part is given special priivelges over the others, probably while the others are paying the bill.

We should go for a "new federalism" or tell Quebec to "pack their bags" and wish them well in their independence.

I dread the day when Québec "packs its bags," and here's why: throughout this country's history, Québec has acted as a moderating influence on the WASPy-Conservative tendency that occasionally rears its ugly head in English Canada (think Boer War, conscription, daycare, Afghanistan, Harper, etc). Without Québec, Canada does become a country that is predominantly conservative in nature; the social democratic tendencies in Canada are far less pronounced outside Québec than within. You may be willing to tell Québec to suck it up and be "equal" with PEI, but that is not official NDP policy, and I vehemently disagree with you.

If Québec does decide to leave the federation, I know which side of the border I want to be on (and it isn't the angryphone side).

As to "who pays for it," the idea that the rest of Canada pays for the "extra" services they receive is a big fat lie. Québecers pay for this themselves through their higher rates of taxation (something the rest of us should be emulating). Transfer payments are paid out to provinces on a per-capita basis, based on the average income (and ultimately tax-based) revenue that provinces are able to raise from individuals in their border, and are divied out in order to ensure a comparable level of service and infrastructure is possible in all parts of the country. These monies, in turn, are not transfers directly from one province to another, but rather represent revenues collected by the federal government from INDIVIDUALS (NOT PROVINCES!!!) via federal taxation.

In terms of the formula for equalization and its fairness, I am aware of only two provinces that get "special treatment," to wit they are able to deduct the large amount of royalties they are able to levy on natural resources from wealth calculations that determine the transfer formula. These provinces are Alberta (and also recently) Saskatchewan. Why don't you ask Newfoundland and Labrador how they feel about not being offered the same sweetheart deal that these poor, hard-done-by prairie provinces get.

Sat, 2011-12-03 01:34

#20

algomafalcon

Winston wrote:

algomafalcon wrote:

I am 100% opposed to any and all forms of asymmetric federalism.

However, that doesn't mean I would oppose a total and complete revamping of Canadian federalism to accomodate greater de-centralism, perhaps along the lines of a "four nations" federation. (Quebec, West, Ontario and Atlantic).

Asymmetric by definition means that one part is given special priivelges over the others, probably while the others are paying the bill.

We should go for a "new federalism" or tell Quebec to "pack their bags" and wish them well in their independence.

I dread the day when Québec "packs its bags," and here's why: throughout this country's history, Québec has acted as a moderating influence on the WASPy-Conservative tendency that occasionally rears its ugly head in English Canada (think Boer War, conscription, daycare, Afghanistan, Harper, etc). Without Québec, Canada does become a country that is predominantly conservative in nature; the social democratic tendencies in Canada are far less pronounced outside Québec than within. You may be willing to tell Québec to suck it up and be "equal" with PEI, but that is not official NDP policy, and I vehemently disagree with you.

If Québec does decide to leave the federation, I know which side of the border I want to be on (and it isn't the angryphone side).

I'm not totally disagreeing with the points you raise. However, I should say that I believe that asymmetry DOES imply a nation where one group is treated unequally. I know that is currently very popular with the NDP (because its sounds SO PROGRESSIVE).

But this is the same group who wants to make Quebec votes count more than the votes in the rest of the country. Sorry, I just can't support that sort of nonsense. Who are they to say that the vote of a Quebecer should be worth more than the vote of a person in BC, or any other part of Canada.

I know that lots of people are willing to sing along with anything that Quebec "demands". But count me out.

And I couldn't give two figs to vote for a party which will grovel to appease one part of Canada over all others. (Sounds JUST like the Liberals)

Call me "traditional", but that is how I feel. I believe in nation based on equality - not servitude.

Sat, 2011-12-03 01:40

#21

Fidel

I think the system of federal-provincial transfer payments was originally created because western provinces like Alberta were not-have provinces, as in they were have-nots. And today they represent what can and does go wrong within a corrupt petro state.

Sat, 2011-12-03 01:45

#22

Winston

AF:

I think all too often people see "different" as meaning "special treatment." People in English Canada seem to have a lot of misconceptions about what Quebec's demands entail (please see the points I raised about "payments to Québec" when I edited my post above).

Assymetric federalism is about recognizing that we may want a Canada-wide pension plan (CPP) while Québec may want their own, as is the case now. In the future, a Federal NDP government may decide it wants to partner with the Provinces to build and fund a national childcare program. Assymetric federalism is about letting Québec decide to opt out if it wants (they already have one), but letting them still retain the funding they would otherwise have gotten from the Federal government. The federal government and the provinces may decide in the future that we want national standards in education (a move all of the universities in Canada would love to see, but also an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction), Québec, I expect would want to opt out of such a move. Perhaps we develop a national pharmacare program (health - another provincial jurisdiction), but let Québec develop its own.

Sat, 2011-12-03 01:59

#23

Debater

The NDP's position on Quebec is going to be one of the most interesting things to watch over the next several years. It could determine whether they become the long-term Official Opposition, or whether they lose that position in the next election.

Are NDP candidates like Mulcair who want to be Official Opposition leader, and therefore run for Prime Minister, going to abandon some of their BQ-lite positions, or will they continue to call for an increase in Bill 101's provision and an abolition of the Clarity Act?

It was one thing for Mulcair and the NDP to take pro-BQ positions when they wanted to make a big breakthrough in Quebec, but it's another thing to advocate those positions when you have to win nationally.

Sat, 2011-12-03 02:11

#24

Winston

Debater wrote:

The NDP's position on Quebec is going to be one of the most interesting things to watch over the next several years. It could determine whether they become the long-term Official Opposition, or whether they lose that position in the next election.

Are NDP candidates like Mulcair who want to be Official Opposition leader, and therefore run for Prime Minister, going to abandon some of their BQ-lite positions, or will they continue to call for an increase in Bill 101's provision and an abolition of the Clarity Act?

It was one thing for Mulcair and the NDP to take pro-BQ positions when they wanted to make a big breakthrough in Quebec, but it's another thing to advocate those positions when you have to win nationally.

Thank-you, Liberal HQ, for the insightful analysis...

I believe we were having a rather interesting conversation on what exactly assymmetric federalism means, and what the implications of the Sherbrooke Declaration are to the nation, and you manage to reduce it to some tired old talking points that are just re-iterations of your previous posts in the same thread.

Sat, 2011-12-03 02:12

#25

Debater

It's some pretty honest and objective advice, actually and if the NDP is smart it will take it. And it isn't really Liberal-HQ or me who is saying it - it's something that's been said by many commentators and journalists for months now.

A lot of people, ranging from Rex Murphy to Barbara Kay have done pieces in which they have portrayed the NDP as basically selling out to BQ voters and choosing a "BQ lite" ideology over a commitment to federalism.

This could be the death of the NDP down the road if it is not careful.

Sat, 2011-12-03 02:28

#26

Fidel

Debater wrote:
This could be the death of the NDP down the road if it is not careful.

The NDP is going to be the federal government for the first time in Canadian history by 2015. And here's some advice for when that epic campaign battle does take place: Consider voting strategically for the one party with a chance of defeating the Harpers, the NDP.

Sat, 2011-12-03 02:41

#27

Winston

Debater wrote:

This could be the death of the NDP down the road if it is not careful.

I doubt it.

I also put less than zero stock in anything Barbara Kay or that pompous a$$ Rex Murphy have to say. During the last election, Rex was on this big kick that only the PM and the leader of the Official Opposition should be invited to the televised debates - I wonder if he still thinks that?

Debaser wrote:

It's some pretty honest and objective advice, actually and if the NDP is smart it will take it. And it isn't really Liberal-HQ or me who is saying it - it's something that's been said by many commentators and journalists for months now.

And also a rewording of exactly what you had to say back at post #3 (and post #10). It seems more like an attempt to derail constructive discussion and cause mischief...a very successful one, at that!

Sat, 2011-12-03 18:55

#28

Debater

Winston wrote:

Debater wrote:

This could be the death of the NDP down the road if it is not careful.

I doubt it.

I also put less than zero stock in anything Barbara Kay or that pompous a$$ Rex Murphy have to say. During the last election, Rex was on this big kick that only the PM and the leader of the Official Opposition should be invited to the televised debates - I wonder if he still thinks that?

Debaser wrote:

It's some pretty honest and objective advice, actually and if the NDP is smart it will take it. And it isn't really Liberal-HQ or me who is saying it - it's something that's been said by many commentators and journalists for months now.

And also a rewording of exactly what you had to say back at post #3 (and post #10). It seems more like an attempt to derail constructive discussion and cause mischief...a very successful one, at that!

Nope, what I have said is just the actual thoughts and feelings of many people out there - those Canadians who don't view everything the NDP thinks as being correct. I know you view any disagreement with the NDP as heresy or the work of Liberal HQ, but there are real live Canadians who think the same as I do on this issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/rexmurphy/story/2011/06/02...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/29/barbara-kay-ndp-throws-qu...

http://www.vigile.net/NDP-is-selling-out-anglos-to-court

http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/language+hypocrisy/5642385/story.html

Sat, 2011-12-03 18:57

#29

Debater

The NDP has not demonstrated it can attract enough voters to beat the Conservatives. In the last election, even with its most charismatic and successful leader in history, it could only make a major breakthrough in Quebec. Ontario voted Conservative to block the NDP. And how do you know that the NDP is going to be the government in 2015? Based on what indications, exactly? Layton couldn't even keep Harper to a minority.

Sat, 2011-12-03 19:18

#30

Evening Star

I know that this is what asymettrical federalism means and I also oppose it. If federal revenue is being provided for something, it seems reasonable to me that the federal government gets a say in how it's used. And would you support the right of every province to 'opt out with full compensation' in this way? If it's fair for Quebec to be able to do this, it's equally fair for another province to do so, right?

Similarly oppose giving Quebec a constitutional veto that goes beyond what the provinces already have (in what is already a very decentralized federation).

Winston wrote:

AF:

I think all too often people see "different" as meaning "special treatment." People in English Canada seem to have a lot of misconceptions about what Quebec's demands entail (please see the points I raised about "payments to Québec" when I edited my post above).

Assymetric federalism is about recognizing that we may want a Canada-wide pension plan (CPP) while Québec may want their own, as is the case now. In the future, a Federal NDP government may decide it wants to partner with the Provinces to build and fund a national childcare program. Assymetric federalism is about letting Québec decide to opt out if it wants (they already have one), but letting them still retain the funding they would otherwise have gotten from the Federal government. The federal government and the provinces may decide in the future that we want national standards in education (a move all of the universities in Canada would love to see, but also an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction), Québec, I expect would want to opt out of such a move. Perhaps we develop a national pharmacare program (health - another provincial jurisdiction), but let Québec develop its own.

Sat, 2011-12-03 19:33

#31

Gaian

I think, Evening Star, that you should hear what Romeo Saganash has to say on the subject.The division of interests does not stop at the provincial level.

Sat, 2011-12-03 20:19

#32

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Ah, so that is where these talking points came from Debater.

The plot thickens.

Who are you, Sherlock Holmes? Come Watson, the game's afoot!

Sat, 2011-12-03 20:21

#33

Aristotleded24

Winston wrote:
I think all too often people see "different" as meaning "special treatment." People in English Canada seem to have a lot of misconceptions about what Quebec's demands entail (please see the points I raised about "payments to Québec" when I edited my post above).

Assymetric federalism is about recognizing that we may want a Canada-wide pension plan (CPP) while Québec may want their own, as is the case now. In the future, a Federal NDP government may decide it wants to partner with the Provinces to build and fund a national childcare program. Assymetric federalism is about letting Québec decide to opt out if it wants (they already have one), but letting them still retain the funding they would otherwise have gotten from the Federal government. The federal government and the provinces may decide in the future that we want national standards in education (a move all of the universities in Canada would love to see, but also an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction), Québec, I expect would want to opt out of such a move. Perhaps we develop a national pharmacare program (health - another provincial jurisdiction), but let Québec develop its own.

For me, there are things we should do on a national basis, like health care, education, housing, childcare, public transit, among others. I believe that all provinces, Quebec included, should abide by Canada-wide standards. At the same time, we need to work with Quebec, Alberta, BC and the rest of the provinces so that there is a consensus that they can all buy into, and there are practical reasons. For example, I have no problem with federal tax dollars going to health care in Quebec, but what if that cash is going to profits for private clinics and private hospitals in Quebec? We have national standards to ensure that all Canadians have access to the same services regardless of where they live, yet these standards must also take into account the vast diversity that exists within Canada.

The other thing is that when talk of assymetric federalism is discussed only in relation to Quebec, we are missing the boat. Every province has legitimate grievances with Confederation, and have at one time threatened to separate or in some cases, even taken up arms, as was the case in Manitoba. Part of the reason why people feel that Quebec wants "special treatment" is that Quebec's grievances with Confederation receive more attention than the others. Instead of thinking of Quebec's relationship with the other provinces, we should all be talking with Quebec so what we all come up with something that we can live with.

On top of this, the First Nations need to be included in the discussion as well.

Sat, 2011-12-03 20:22

#34

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

Winston wrote:

Debater wrote:

This could be the death of the NDP down the road if it is not careful.

I doubt it.

I also put less than zero stock in anything Barbara Kay or that pompous a$$ Rex Murphy have to say. During the last election, Rex was on this big kick that only the PM and the leader of the Official Opposition should be invited to the televised debates - I wonder if he still thinks that?

Debaser wrote:

It's some pretty honest and objective advice, actually and if the NDP is smart it will take it. And it isn't really Liberal-HQ or me who is saying it - it's something that's been said by many commentators and journalists for months now.

And also a rewording of exactly what you had to say back at post #3 (and post #10). It seems more like an attempt to derail constructive discussion and cause mischief...a very successful one, at that!

Nope, what I have said is just the actual thoughts and feelings of many people out there - those Canadians who don't view everything the NDP thinks as being correct. I know you view any disagreement with the NDP as heresy or the work of Liberal HQ, but there are real live Canadians who think the same as I do on this issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/rexmurphy/story/2011/06/02...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/29/barbara-kay-ndp-throws-qu...

http://www.vigile.net/NDP-is-selling-out-anglos-to-court

http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/language+hypocrisy/5642385/story.html

Debater, your arguement is like the old Fox News trick, "some people say".

You are so full of yourself. Go ahead, hang on to that. It only gauratees that 2015 is going to be a real dissapointment for you.

Sat, 2011-12-03 20:57

#35

Evening Star

Gaian wrote:
I think, Evening Star, that you should hear what Romeo Saganash has to say on the subject.The division of interests does not stop at the provincial level.

Will seek that out.