The asymmetric orthodoxy
Everybody has fallen in love with Stephen Harper's new "open federalism," and if anyone can figure out what it is perhaps they'll call me. For now, all is sweet nothings.
"Quebecers want to move on, and so does your new national government," Mr. Harper told his Montreal adorers the other day, distinguishing himself from the "separatists" on the one hand and the "centralizers" on the other, who had colluded to "polarize" the debate in Quebec and "poison" the federation for two generations. As for him, he just wants "a stronger Quebec within a better Canada."
Who are these centralizers, whom Mr. Harper depicts as the separatists' moral equivalent? Does he mean Lester Pearson, who allowed Quebec to opt out of the Canada Pension Plan, to take tax points in lieu of federal transfers and much else besides? Perhaps he means Pierre Trudeau, who agreed to share control of immigration with Quebec, converted provincial transfers from matching funds to block grants, and -- his most sweeping concession -- brought in the 1982 Constitution.
Yes, that Constitution -- the one that handed the provinces control over the amending formula, entrenched provincial jurisdiction over resources, committed Ottawa to provide equalization grants to the provinces till kingdom come and as a special favour to Quebec, allowed that province to opt out of minority-language schooling obligations binding on all the others. Oh, and the Charter, of course, the one and only federal "win" in the whole deal, though it has proved to be far more binding on the feds than the provinces.
So he must be referring to Brian Mulroney, who offered the provinces the moon and the stars at Meech Lake and Charlottetown, with a few extra stars again reserved for Quebec. No? Then it's got to be Jean Chretien, who tied the constitution even further in provincial knots (every region now has a veto), who withdrew Ottawa from half a dozen contested jurisdictions, who removed most remaining federal conditions on social transfers and who accepted, via the Social Union agreement, a provincial veto on the federal spending power.
I know: It's Paul Martin. He of the $41-billion health care giveaway, of "asymmetric federalism" and special equalization deals for the asking. He must be one of those domineering centralizers Mr. Harper is talking about. Or if not him, then who?
Details, details. Whoever they are, Mr. Harper is not like them. He's new, he's fresh, he's different. As Benoit Pelletier, Quebec's minister for intergovernmental affairs trilled, suddenly "there is a real will to accommodate Quebec's specificity within Canada." Mario Dumont, the former separatist, suggested that "Mr. Harper has opened the door wide for Quebecers." Because, you know, it was so closed before.
What, substantively, is the cause of all this commotion? So far as we know, two things. One, Mr. Harper has promised to do something about "the fiscal imbalance," an alleged malady whereby the federal government, although it now transfers $42-billion a year to the provinces -- a fifth of its revenues -- is said to be hoarding money that should rightfully be theirs.
Quite what remedy Mr. Harper has in mind, however, is as murky as the ill it is intended to address. As he told his Montreal audience, mischievously, everyone has their own definition of the fiscal imbalance. And if absolutely everything can be passed off as the fiscal imbalance, absolutely everything can be part of the solution.
Indeed, there are encouraging signs that the Harper government, taking note of the divisions within provincial ranks, has a rather different agenda in mind for the coming round of federal-provincial talks than just handing out wads of cash. Publicly and privately, it has been dropping hints that the problems of fiscal federalism will be rolled into more broad-ranging discussions about improving the coherence of Canadian economic policy -- for example, a unified national securities regulator, in place of the current chaos of 13.
As for Mr. Harper's other promise, to give Quebec a seat, as part of the Canadian delegation, at UNESCO, it's difficult to know what to make of this. On its own, it is probably inconsequential: Quebec would not have a vote, and could not veto Canada's. But it is a troublesome precedent. And as we know, precedents have a habit of becoming baselines, the ground on which to pitch the next round of "minimal" demands.
How open would Mr. Harper be to these? There's the question. It depends: Which Mr. Harper are we talking about -- the one who opposed the Meech and Charlottetown accords, or the one who was more recently heard to muse that the binational state of Belgium might serve as a model for Canada? The one who merely promises to stick to the letter of the existing constitution, or the one who talks, more and more of late, about amending it? As he courts Quebec voters, Mr. Harper is relying on that oldest of ploys, calculated ambiguity.
An old one, and a dangerous one. I hope to God he knows what he's doing.
"Quebecers want to move on, and so does your new national government," Mr. Harper told his Montreal adorers the other day, distinguishing himself from the "separatists" on the one hand and the "centralizers" on the other, who had colluded to "polarize" the debate in Quebec and "poison" the federation for two generations. As for him, he just wants "a stronger Quebec within a better Canada."
Who are these centralizers, whom Mr. Harper depicts as the separatists' moral equivalent? Does he mean Lester Pearson, who allowed Quebec to opt out of the Canada Pension Plan, to take tax points in lieu of federal transfers and much else besides? Perhaps he means Pierre Trudeau, who agreed to share control of immigration with Quebec, converted provincial transfers from matching funds to block grants, and -- his most sweeping concession -- brought in the 1982 Constitution.
Yes, that Constitution -- the one that handed the provinces control over the amending formula, entrenched provincial jurisdiction over resources, committed Ottawa to provide equalization grants to the provinces till kingdom come and as a special favour to Quebec, allowed that province to opt out of minority-language schooling obligations binding on all the others. Oh, and the Charter, of course, the one and only federal "win" in the whole deal, though it has proved to be far more binding on the feds than the provinces.
So he must be referring to Brian Mulroney, who offered the provinces the moon and the stars at Meech Lake and Charlottetown, with a few extra stars again reserved for Quebec. No? Then it's got to be Jean Chretien, who tied the constitution even further in provincial knots (every region now has a veto), who withdrew Ottawa from half a dozen contested jurisdictions, who removed most remaining federal conditions on social transfers and who accepted, via the Social Union agreement, a provincial veto on the federal spending power.
I know: It's Paul Martin. He of the $41-billion health care giveaway, of "asymmetric federalism" and special equalization deals for the asking. He must be one of those domineering centralizers Mr. Harper is talking about. Or if not him, then who?
Details, details. Whoever they are, Mr. Harper is not like them. He's new, he's fresh, he's different. As Benoit Pelletier, Quebec's minister for intergovernmental affairs trilled, suddenly "there is a real will to accommodate Quebec's specificity within Canada." Mario Dumont, the former separatist, suggested that "Mr. Harper has opened the door wide for Quebecers." Because, you know, it was so closed before.
What, substantively, is the cause of all this commotion? So far as we know, two things. One, Mr. Harper has promised to do something about "the fiscal imbalance," an alleged malady whereby the federal government, although it now transfers $42-billion a year to the provinces -- a fifth of its revenues -- is said to be hoarding money that should rightfully be theirs.
Quite what remedy Mr. Harper has in mind, however, is as murky as the ill it is intended to address. As he told his Montreal audience, mischievously, everyone has their own definition of the fiscal imbalance. And if absolutely everything can be passed off as the fiscal imbalance, absolutely everything can be part of the solution.
Indeed, there are encouraging signs that the Harper government, taking note of the divisions within provincial ranks, has a rather different agenda in mind for the coming round of federal-provincial talks than just handing out wads of cash. Publicly and privately, it has been dropping hints that the problems of fiscal federalism will be rolled into more broad-ranging discussions about improving the coherence of Canadian economic policy -- for example, a unified national securities regulator, in place of the current chaos of 13.
As for Mr. Harper's other promise, to give Quebec a seat, as part of the Canadian delegation, at UNESCO, it's difficult to know what to make of this. On its own, it is probably inconsequential: Quebec would not have a vote, and could not veto Canada's. But it is a troublesome precedent. And as we know, precedents have a habit of becoming baselines, the ground on which to pitch the next round of "minimal" demands.
How open would Mr. Harper be to these? There's the question. It depends: Which Mr. Harper are we talking about -- the one who opposed the Meech and Charlottetown accords, or the one who was more recently heard to muse that the binational state of Belgium might serve as a model for Canada? The one who merely promises to stick to the letter of the existing constitution, or the one who talks, more and more of late, about amending it? As he courts Quebec voters, Mr. Harper is relying on that oldest of ploys, calculated ambiguity.
An old one, and a dangerous one. I hope to God he knows what he's doing.
4/22/2006
