Harper's Grand Plan Externally

Posted on Wednesday, February 01 at 12:50 by 4Canada
He will not accomplish either quickly, particularly in a House of Commons where his Conservatives hold only a minority of seats. But his twin ideas decentralize internally; focus externally promise to inform everything he does as prime minister. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1138229413386&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907626796%20%20http://www.vivelecanada.ca

Note: http://www.thestar.com/...

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:33 pm
    From the article:

    "In practical terms, this means that Ottawa could no longer afford a host of social and industrial programs from funding medicare to supporting aerospace firms.

    On paper, there might still be, say, a national medicare scheme. But with fewer funds at its disposal, the national government would be unable to entice provinces to play by national rules."

    While I'm a big fan of decentralization, I think health care should be sole responsibility of the feds. I think this would eliminate the differences between provinces and standardize practices across the country. And elimate one level of administrators that cost the system.


    ---
    "If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill

  2. Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:52 pm
    Aw,Shucks!
    Golly Gee
    does this mean our (some of us) suspicions are being confirmed?


    ---
    Nothing in this World makes People so Afraid as the Influence of an Independant Minded Individual.
    Attrib. Al Einstien

  3. Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:52 pm
    The erosion of national standards means the lowering of standards over time. Divide and conquer tactics again. We are already too decentralized. Why do it some more, unless of course, your aim is to transform Canada into a hollow shell. As Pierre Trudeau said, " What do you want the federal government to be? Someone there to merely cut ribbons?"

    ---
    Dave Ruston

  4. by Innes
    Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:54 am
    In order to make medicare the responsiblity of the federal government we would need a constitutional change. I doubt that the provinces would be willing to give up control.

  5. by Innes
    Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:01 am
    What does "the great moral battle against tyranny and terror" really mean?

    When one nation tries to impose its values on another is that not "tyranny and terror?"

  6. Thu Feb 02, 2006 3:48 am
    Thats the level or Orwellian language we are faced with from our politicians.

    Just like we are known for "Peacekeeping". What that really means in enforcing for the UN.

  7. by Innes
    Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:02 pm
    Stephen Harper describes Canada's core values as "freedom, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, free markets, and free trade." Then he added in what appears to be an afterthought "compassion on the world stage." He has not articulated what he means by these terms and there are many concepts of freedom.

    For example, some economic theorists mean by "freedom" the freedom from government control over markets. Some consider it the freedom of capital to move at will without any limits in its concentration or movement. Some might even see freedom as freedom from the rule of law. Some see freedom as the freedom to enforce their will on others.

    What does "human rights" mean? Harper believes that the right to marry should not a human right for same sex partners. Many conservatives are opposed to the right of women to control their bodies.

    What is free trade or what are free markets? What does he mean by democracy?

    Does the term "values" simply refer to the monetary value of something: trade, goods? What does he mean by "moral"?

    Do these five or six things that Harper believes are Canadian values correspond to what you see as your five top values? They do not represent mine.

  8. Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:23 pm
    Nor should they. I find it odd that so-called "nationalists" who claim to love Canada are so disdainful of the federal system and the existence of a provincial level of government. Canada was not conceived as a unitarist state, Pierre Trudeau's opinion notwithstanding.

    The provinces were given authority over health. There is no ambiguity in this assignment of powers at all. The federal government has no business being involved in healthcare. The only reason they've managed to muscle their way in is because of their greater powers of taxation.

    Stephen Harper's vision is the correct one - allow the provinces to have control over their legitimate jurisdictions and have the federal government focus on its constitutionally-assigned responsibilities.



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.



Latest Editorials

more articles »

Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news