We Need A Constitutional Constituent Assemby To Regain Sovereignty

Canada is already the most decentralized country in the world in terms of federal and provincial powers and to seek to devolve anymore power to the provincial governments would only serve to fracture this country more than it is. If anything the provincial governments have served only to interfere with efforts by the federal government to fund things like healthcare, postsecondary education, and municipal infrastructure, crying foul because they want direct control over that money so they can then claim credit for funding these things more than is their due. I would be more in favor of returning jurisdiction over some of these areas to the federal government with some mechanism other than the provincial governments to ensure an equitable distribution of financial resources.

Also, there is no need to create a new party that stands for the sovereignty of Canada, as one already exists in the form of the Canadian Action Party.

Just a quick note to the above-the federal government NEVER had those powers. Municipalities are completely under provincial jurisdictions, and so are virtually all the social roles you mention. Provinces can't 'interfere' with something they have always been responsible for. The general thrust of the above seems to be aimed at inter governmental problems, which is reasonable, but until you understand how government actually works, it's hard to criticize and difficult to know where to take a stand. If anything, the FEDERAL government, through usurping the income tax, has overstepped its boundaries and inhibited provincial governments ability to deal with significant problems.

As far as being the most 'loosely' federalized that statement really can't be quantified. The states have considerable powers over and above their federal government, and even Great Britain devolves serious 'home rule' to northern ireland, wales, scotland, it's remaining colonies, and even counties. Of course Switzerland is even more looseely based, and this has not endangered the country of Switzerland of splitting up, it is far more stable than canada under it's current structure. So, this is a pretty big issue.

Actually, you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about here. Healthcare and postsecondary education are strictly under the jurisdiction of the provincial government. Just to make it clear, municipalities have no voice in these matters whatsoever. If this was so do you seriously think the City of Calgary would have agreed to the blowing up of one major hospital and the selling off of another both serving it downtown core and both with fully operational Emergency Rooms or do you think the City of Calgary would have chosen to allow its university to remain chronically underfunded for the last 15 years?

While it is true that municipalities are responsible for the planning of their own infrastructure, a great deal of the financing is doled out by provincial governments. This effectively places a great deal of the decision making into provincial hands rather than municipalities' control. You may also recall that during the last election it was the provincial premiers that created problems when Ottawa proposed giving a percentage of the federal gas tax directly to the municipalities, in essence jeopardizing such a program.

Regarding Ottawa usurping income tax, you should also go and do your homework. The provinces have long been able to levy any income tax they want.

By your name it sounds like you may be from Quebec and if that is the case any comments you have to make on federalism are suspect, as who knows whether you are a Quebec nationalist or not.

As for the countries you mentioned above, about the only one that has any merit for being more decentralized than Canada is Switzerland and you can hardly use it as a valid comparison to judge whether a decentralized system of government would lead to weakened unity in Canada since they are geographically and culturally at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of size and cultural diversity.

You must be a Liberal backbencher. More powers to provinces is what we need. You must like the feds for their ability to handle our money. Look at our military, our foreign service, our immigration. I haven't heard of any provinces stealing money to give to their friends coupled with money laundering. You must have dark motives to suggest such a thing. If we had no government in Ottawa we would all be better off. At least they didn't build the capital in Kingston. Canada and France are probably the most corrupt governments in the G7. Expanding their powers is not what you want surely. If the Liberals are re-elected
I am going to change homes with a democrat in San Diego.
Hmmmmmmmm Wonder when the next election will be.

There's no need to get insulting, I've done plenty of homework and it's clear from your letter that you didn't even read much of my post. I clearly said the exact same thing as you, that provinces have power over municipalities and health/education. That's a fact, we both agree on it, so it doesn't matter 'where I'm from'.

The other fact, as you point out, is that provinces can set their own income tax, and I never said they couldn't. However, another 'fact' here is that the majority of provinces in Canada are 'have not' provinces, meaning that the federal government 'doles out' transfer payments. Again, that's a fact. If you live in a have not province that's puts pretty serious pressure on how much income tax you can charge, partly because you haven't got the population, and because you haven't got the income-that's why you're called a 'have not' province. Again, that's a fact and you can 'suspect it' all you want.

The next part are facts so far as I know but they can be interpreted differently so are open to argument. In New Brunswick the average household income is approximately half of what it is in Ontario. You can look that up. If you also look at the population you will also note that about half of graduating students leave the maritimes for other areas, primarily because of lack of jobs, but also because of lack of opportunity. I am one of them, and have never actually spent any time in Quebec except driving through it.

My point, which you can argue if you want, is that if you live in an area that doesn't even possess the population, division of wealth, or income level to sustain the fundamentals necessary to support the national standard of federal programs (which is what transfer payments are designed for), then you certainly can't 'jack up' your provincial income tax any time you feel like it or what few professionals are in your province will flee. Again, it's not a 'fact' that the federal government 'causes' the inability for provinces to deal with these issues, but that's what my point was and you can certainly argue it, however I saw nothing in your post that would cause me any reason to disregard it.

That Switzerland and Canada are at the opposite ends of the spectrum simply leads to the question: what spectrum? Canada has already had one recent referendum and many provinces have as well. All provinces have made the legal requirements to have referenda, and British Columbia has an, albeit bad, system for citizen's initiative. No provinces have legislation prohibiting them. THe only reason they are not used more often is simply because the government CHOOSES not to. We know how to do them, it isn't rocket science, and denying them is essentially denying democracy and people's right to control their government. In that sense I agree that we are at opposite ends of the 'democratic' spectrum-they have democratic tools, we do not.

As the above pointed out, the federal government has a dismal record as far as fiscal control go. I know of no federal program which serves the purpose for which it was intended very well. The EI program is one such example, the HRDC, and the BDC, CIDA, Bank of Canada,and transfer payments in general and the list goes on. However, don't mistake me as being the same as the poster above, I believe the federal govenrment has a valuable place, albeit one with more limited powers in some areas and expanded powers in others. I definitely think canadians 'need protection' from their provincial governments, however, I don't believe that is currently being even remotely done.

"I haven't heard of any provinces stealing money to give to their friends...." It is time you did a little research. I cannot think of one province where this has not gone on at some point in time. One of the best known was the Duplessis government in Quebec. Government corruption happens at all levels.

I believe the problems that occur are largely created through the control the political operatives gain over the mechanisms of government. These operatives oil the party machine, or line their own pockets, and the longer the party is in power the worse the abuses become.

To suggest we would be better off without the federal government makes no sense unless you want to have your province taken over by some foreign interest. We need a strong federal government not the directionless bunch we have in charge in Ottawa today.

To provide a viable alternative we have to be willing to work for it. It is not the system that is the problem it is ourselves. We are the problem because we will not get off our butts and become active. Instead we gripe and complain and blame everything and everybody but ourselves.

As I've said before, the above isn't remotely true, take a look at the numbers involved in organizations, etc., it's quite impressive. It most definitely IS the system. We have NO democratic tools to control government and even our access to information laws are now considered among the worst in the industrialized world. The reason we have the bunch in Ottawa making ALL our decisions is not because canadians want it that way, there simply is no mechanism to challenge it.

Hey, I wrote the submission, and I am not advocating
any of things you write about or go after me for. What I
am saying, is that our democracy is a very low-level
democracy and is largely dysfunctional, there is little
transparency (FOI and after the fact inquiries are a
farce), and little accountability. But more than that, the
colonial constitution is outdated, it allows way too much
power to be centralized not in Parliament but expressly
in the PMO's office and in the hands of very few
mandarins who run the entire show. The Prime Minister
and Minister's of the CRown have way to much power,
and why should it be that soverignty rest in the Crown
and not directly in the people of Canada. The single
most important issue facing Canada is its continuance
as a sovereign country...and with Elitist executive
federalism that seeks to privilege an oligarchy of
corporations, increasingly multinational, and that signs
onto international treaties such as FTA, NAFTA, and
possibly a FTAA, and now the issue of 'deep integration'
which seeks even closer continentalist ties with USA
and the permanent war economy....is this really what
the citizens of Canada want?

So the only question of relevance given the context, is
do we keep fighting 'sovereignty battles' on issue, x,y, z,
as they arise...or do we seek a proactive solution. So,
what do you think of this question, do you agree, is now
the historical time when the people of Canada should
be asked such a question?...or? ...and there is no need
for personal attacks...this is simply a debate of issues
here.

"Do you favour the creation of a Constitutional
Constituent Assembly to write a new constitution for
Canada, members to which Assembly are Canadian
citizens elected by proportional representation, and that
said new proposed constitution be submitted directly to
the people of Canada by referendum.

Which is why we need referendums and proportional representation and a new political party which understands the need to decentralize the legislative powers. Good post Patriot Pete.

Quite simply, all this is idle talk, speaking at least to those like the poster of this thread. The idea that somehow and someway we can just 'rewrite' the constitution is ludicrous, there is virtually no way apart from a revolution that that can occur. Even if you had a political party proposing it it would never get through the legal system which would essentially have to be disbanded (at least the supreme court and governor generals office (privy council)and senate).

If you go and check out the direct democracy threads you can have a look at the system that I think is easiest. This is because the constitution does not need to be rewritten. If you simply run as a direct democracy candidate then by definition the power rests in the people. It is of course only in people's imaginations that our 'representatives' actually represent us, and there are considerable barriers in place even if you get an independant in office, and even an independant doesn't always speak for all the people simply because they don't know the will of the people.

To paraphrase the direct democracy thread the system is set up so that the representative provides information to constituents and counts the votes. There is no 'agenda' or angle, there is none of the BS parties spew out to convince people to like them. This, of course, requires education and hard work, but nobody said changing a country is easy.

You know, just because you are the one who submitted this article it is still just your opinion and therefore it is open to examination and critique (I see no reference to any facts about the way our government works or anything else for that matter in your submission).

I would suggest that if you are not prepared to accept such don't write anymore articles.

A system such as that places an enormous amount of power in the hands of a representative who can manipulate the vote in whatever way he choses and then uses the result to claim it is democratic. It is also very expensive and inefficient.

This is the type of process that is used in most bureaucracies and corporations which places the untimate power in the hands of the CEO who is trained to operate in his own self-interest. It is only if the perceived self-interest of the CEO or politician is consistent with the perceived self-interest of the public that the system can work.

I can understand why people like social conservatives might promote such a system because with such a system we would probably never have achieved any level of equality such as giving women the vote or making it illegal to discriminate on any number of basis.

Mike Harris, Gordon Campbell, and Ralph Klein have ALL rewarded their buddies quite well! Iagree that the Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP are all sellouts! I`d like to see those of us who really support Canadian sovereignty give the Canadian Action Party a chance. It`s quite new, as we all know, and so far, has not been corrupted by the sellouts!

---
Dave Ruston

I apologize for missing the one point you agreed with me in your post (provincial powers).

Where you are from certainly does matter because it affects what your opinion may be. If you are from Quebec and especially if you are a Quebec nationalist, you aren't going to agree with federalism simply because it conflicts with your goal of separating from Canada. Why the reluctance to say where you are from and what you believe in?

As for your question about which spectrum, you are guilty about not reading my post here. I clearly stated that they are at opposite ends of the spectrum regarding geographical size and diversity of culture. I would add in here diversity of geography as well since this, along with cultural differences, results in differences in thinking on issues such as economics and the level of involvement of government in peoples' lives or lack thereof, the value of social programs, etc. For example, Albertans in general think very differently about most of these matters than someone from the Maritimes. Contrast this to Switzerland where almost all of the people speak the same language and are from the same culture and live in very close proximity geographically so that their thoughts about most things listed above are the same. Why is this important? Simply because Switzerland is already strongly united and therefore can withstand some decentralizing of powers whereas Canada does not possess such natural unity and therefore needs a strong central government to hold us together.