| Just recently (August 2001), the Premiers of the
provinces in Canada got together to formulate demands that the Federal
Government hand to them over money and power. The argument for
this is rooted in their belief that the federal government is too strong,
the country is too centralized.
Would it surprise you to learn
that the Fathers of our Confederation were very concerned that the
Provinces might get a little too uppity like this? In fact the political system in Canada was
constructed with a strong central government, for the benefit of all Canadians.
In 1864 during debates on Confederation, John A. MacDonald gave us a
very clear picture of the motives which formed the basis of our federal
system as outlined in the British North America Act. In part he
said;
| "...The Conference having come to the
conclusion that a legislative union, pure and simple, was
impracticable, our next attempt was to form a government upon
federal principles, which would give to the General Government
the strength of a legislative and administrative union, while at
the same time it preserved that liberty of action for the
different sections which is allowed by a Federal Union. And I am
strong in the belief -- that we have hit upon the happy medium
in those resolutions, and that we have formed a scheme of
government which unites the advantages of both, giving us the
strength of a legislative union and the sectional freedom of a
federal union, with protection to local interests. In doing so
we had the advantage of the experience of the United States...." |
What experience in the US was he talking about? MacDonald
continues;
| "Ever since the union was formed the difficulty
of what is called "State Rights" has existed, and this
had much to do in bringing on the present unhappy war in the
United States. They commenced, in fact, at the wrong end. They
declared by their Constitution that each state was a sovereignty
in itself, and that all the powers incident to a sovereignty
belonged to each state, except those powers which, by the
Constitution, were conferred upon the General Government and
Congress." |
Think about it. The fundamental basis of the American civil was
not slavery, as is the popular belief.. It was, rather, the belief that the central
government did not have the right to tell the southern states how to run
their lives. The US constitution was constructed to allow for sovereign
states and the war was fought over the belief that slavery was an
inalienable right of the southern states (I wonder if there will
be a war over the inalienable right to bear arms?).
John A MacDonald, and others in the Constitution Debate believed that
a strong central government was crucial in the Canadian
make-up. He said;
| "Here we have adopted a different system. We
have strengthened the General Government. We have given the
General Legislature all the great subjects of legislation. We
have conferred on them, not only specifically and in detail, all
the powers which are incident to sovereignty, but we have
expressly declared that all subjects of general interest not
distinctly and exclusively conferred upon the local governments
and local legislatures, shall be conferred upon the General
Government and Legislature. -- We have thus avoided that great
source of weakness which has been the cause of the disruption of
the United States. We have avoided all conflict of jurisdiction
and authority, and if this Constitution is carried out,...we
will have in fact, as I said before, all the advantages of a
legislative union under one administration, with, at the same
time, the guarantees for local institutions and for local laws,
which are insisted upon by so many in the provinces now, I hope,
to be united...." |
When you take a look at the dis-harmony in Canada in 2001, maybe our politicians should read a little more about the reasons why this country
is better off with a strong central government.
At the recent meeting of Provincial Premiers, they spent a great deal
of time sniping at
the Prime Minister of Canada and the federal Liberal party. Would it surprise you to know that
the BNA Act did not even mention the position of a Prime Minister or of
political parties, let
alone Premiers? In our next segment entitled The
Prime Minister and Premiers who aren't, we will discuss this situation. |
