Jack Layton For Leader of the Opposition

...lined up against a Harper majority

Ever since Prime Minister Stephen Harper led the Conservative Party to power in 2006, one word has been considered scandalous if so much as uttered by a Conservative:

Majority.

This has, of course, been driven as much by Liberal panic-mongering as anything else. But now, with the 2011 federal election steadily slipping away from the Liberals, they're working as hard as they can to make a certain word scandalous if so much as uttered by the NDP:

Leader. As in, "of the Opposition".

Following what appeared to be stagnating numbers early in the campaign, the NDP surge -- particularly in Quebec -- has had tongues wagging across Canada.

Michael Ignatieff, for one, is not happy about it.

"Come on, folks, let's be serious," Ignatieff implored. "We've got to choose a government on the 2nd of May; we can't choose a bunch of Boy Scouts on this issue."

Which is actually rather ironic when you think about it: Ignatieff and his fellow opposition leaders essentially told the Canadian public that they toppled the Harper government because they weren't Boy Scouts.

According to Ignatieff, what matters is that Canadians vote for the Liberals in order to avoid returning Stephen Harper to power.

"If you vote for Mr Layton, you're going to get a Harper minority government." Ignatieff forecasted. "If you vote for Mr Duceppe, you're going to get a Harper minority government."

Which, again, is funny when you think about it. To most people, Quebeckers shouldn't vote for the Bloc Quebecois because they're separatists. To Ignatieff, it's because not Quebeckers voting for the Bloc is good for him.

It's the kind of sentiment that gives ample cause for doubt about whether or not Ignatieff is fit to continue as Leader of the Opposition.

But while Ignatieff's stock is fading, another opposition leader continues to gather momentum in the leadership department. And, no, it isn't Gilles Duceppe.

That leader is Jack Layton. Speaking recently on the campaign trail, Layton indicated sound juggment on a matter of intense importance to Canadians: the Constitution.

Layton indicated that he would be open to re-opening the Constitution in order to secure Quebec's assent to that document. And as opposed to Pierre Trudeau, who rammed the Constitution through while a separatist government was in power in Quebec, Layton wants to wait until "the winning conditions for Canada in Quebec" exist.

Needless to say, Layton is gambling. Canadians don't exactly look back on the last rounds of Constitutional wranglings -- the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords -- with fond memories.

Yet Layton is clearly well-attuned to the problems the state of Canada's Constitution -- with Quebec not a signatory to that document -- pose to the country.

"What we're saying is that at some point in the future the whole issue of the fact that Quebec hasn't signed on to our Constitution has got to be dealt with," Layton remarked. "But the first step is getting rid of the Stephen Harper government and putting in place a government that can actually work with not only the people of Quebec, but right across the country, and stop this division that we've been getting for far too long."

Quebec isn't the only waning hole in the country's Constitutional unity. Canada's First Nations have yet to achieve a satisfactory position within the British North America Act.

But if Layton is going to be involved in Constitutional negotiations, it's imperative that those negotiations take place under a Conservative government. If Layton is able to direct such constitutional discussions from the driver's seat, God only knows what kind of disaster will ensue.

One could rest assured that Layton would do everything he can to institutionalize some rather extreme leftist principles in the Constitution. The idea of Libby Davies with a pen at the Constitutional table should send a chill down the spines of any thinking Canadian. (Read: not the kind who vote for Davies.)

All this being said, the Constitution is a key issue for Canada, whether Canadians welcome it or not. Jack Layton's understanding of this is another key marker demonstrating that he's ready to sit in the Opposition's big chair.

Jack Layton would make an excellent Leader of the Opposition... opposing a Stephen Harper majority government.

Dion Needs New Take on Federalism

Federalism is not a wedge issue, it’s the foundation of our country

According to John Ivison, Liberal leader Stephane Dion may be looking to the concept of federalism in his continual search for wedge issues to divide Canadians.

This is, quite simply, bad news for Canada.

According to Ivison, the issue is coming down to a conflict between two visions of federalism: Paul Martin’s vision of assymetrical federalism, under which Quebec would be afforded powers and privileges not afforded to Canada’s other provinces, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s vision of open federalism, under which the jurisdictions of the federal and provincial governments are defined and defended.

The disagreement is fairly simple: Stephen Harper believes the spending and legislating powers of the federal government should be both limited and enshrined, while Stephan Dion believes they should be limitless.

Each side actually has a case. Harper’s belief in defending provincial powers from federal encroachments actually has historical foundations, dating back to the establishment of the country, and the conflict between John A MacDonald and various provincial premiers (spearheaded by Ontario) over various points of conflict.

Yet Stephane Dion has a fair case as well. There always remains the possibility that the federal government may need to step in and establish necessary programs in provinces that are unwilling to establish them on their own, or act in order to prevent the citizens of some provinces from being unduly disadvantaged.

Enshrined federal spending powers laced with contingency clauses seems like a reasonable compromise between the two views.

But this has little to do with symmetrical or assymetrical federalism.

The fact is that federalism cannot be assymetrical and also be just. Not only would assymetrical federalism entrench inequality (and, thus, injustice) in the short term, but it would commit us to that inequality and injustice in the long term. Worse yet, it would establish it as a foundation upon which the country is established.

Assymetrical federalism represents the same threat to Canadian unity as any coercive policy of official bilingualism ever could. Just as many French Canadian scholars were noted to remark with glee (perhaps naively) how official bilingualism could have been used to transform Canada as whole into a French state (at least as acknowledged by Peter Brimelow), assymetrical federalism represents a tool by which extreme Quebecois nationalists could mould Quebec into an increasingly exclusive enclave, while possessing a disproportionate amount of influence over the rest of the country. Assymetrical federalism may not necessarily transform Quebec into a sovereign state nearly by default, but it will certainly do the next best thing.

The granting of such powers to Quebec would only be tenable under circumstances in which those powers are also extended to the other provinces. Then again, that isn’t assymetrical federalism. That would be symmetrical.

Yet the granting of additional powers to, for example, western provinces has rarely been considered seriously because those in power have rarely considered western separatism to be as threatening as Quebec separatism. On the same not, those men have disproportionately tended to be French-Canadian. One may make of that what they will.

If Stephane Dion is truly prepared to depart from his party’s flirtations with assymetrical federalism, as Ivison has suggested, this is a good thing. But turning to the very foundations of Canada as a wedge issue is not.

It shouldn’t be suggested that Dion should consider federalism topica non grata, but rather that he should engage that topic in a responsible, collaborative manner, not a divisive one.

Any discussion of federalism should seek to unite Canadians, not divide them. There are simply some ways in which a country cannot be divided and still remain whole. This is one of them.

The fact is that no politician can reasonably expect to politicize the very concept on which the country was established without risking the break-up of the country. It is in this sense that Dion’s reliance on divisive issues may finally bear fruit, but it will be very bitter fruit, indeed.

The nature of Stephane Dion's take on federalism is bad news for Canada.

100 Things to Improve Canada #2

#2 - Constitutional Reform
Patrick Ross

The truth is, Canada is a country originating from not one, but two foundations.

The first stemmed from the 1867 British North America act, wherein Upper Canada (Ontario), Lower Canada (Quebec), New Brunswick and Nova Scotia established the country as a marriage between these four provinces. Over the following 130 years, that family would be expanded with the addition of eight provinces and three territories.

Post-Confederation Canada would prove preoccupied with various challenges: the conciliation between federal and provincial powers, the debate over the roles of English and French Canada, as well as various controversies over the place of Aboriginals within Canada.

For many Canadians, the foremost problem with Canada was that its constitution remained an act of British parliament. Pierre Trudeau seemingly fell into this category, and in 1982 he repatriated the Constitution, re-founding the country based on principles established by decades of constantly evolving Canadian values, originally legally enshrined by John Diefenbaker. Trudeau entrenched Diefenbaker’s Bill of Rights in the new Constitution.

Yet, Trudeau’s single-minded determination to patriate the Canadian constitution on his own terms led to an incomplete Constitutional family, as Quebec refused to sign onto the new constitution following the infamous “night of the long knives”. Also left out of the new constitution were Canada’s aboriginal peoples, who would manage to get self-government concessions out of the government, but yet in many ways would essentially remain wards of the state.

In short, the repatriated British North America Act 1982 not only failed to resolve the constitutional divides pre-dating the new constitution, but would also leave Quebec effectively constitutionally outside the country, yet locked within it by way of the 1867 agreement.

During the American civil war, president Abraham Lincoln intoned that “a house divided against itself cannot stand”. Yet, 25 years after this re-founding of the country, Canada remains not only a house often divided against itself, but a house built on an incomplete foundation.

This house cannot stand indefinitely.

While some Canadians have advocated solutions that essentially require tearing the Canadian house to the ground the rebuilding it, it remains a matter of debate whether or not this is necessary. Reform doesn’t demand a radical reconstruction of the country, only a more amicable alteration to current affairs.

A reformed constitution essentially requires the solution of Canada’s three major historical dilemmas: the place of Aboriginal Canadians, the relationship between Ontario and Quebec and the nature of Canada’s lingual policies.

Canada would best resolve the difficulties posed by the current status of Aboriginals by reorganizing their place within confederation. Canada’s six treaty areas should be reorganized into defacto provinces, each with the power to set laws within reserves, power of taxation over its residents, and powers to set policy over areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The department of Indian affairs would need to be abolished, and its funding could instead be directed toward transfer payments.

Most importantly, Canada’s aboriginals would be able to embrace Canadian citizenship and a place in confederation in dignity, with their demands for self-government essentially met.

Reconciling Quebec’s demands could prove more difficult. Quebec has historically had numerous demands, most of them driven by concerns over political and cultural autonomy. Yet, Quebec is also a rapidly diversifying province, one of the most popular destinations for incoming immigrants. As such, the presumption of francophone and (post-1960) Quebecois cultural dominance can be called into question. Even if Quebec isn’t assimilating into anglophone Canada, many immigrant groups in Quebec aren’t assimilating into francophone Quebec culture.

Brian Mulroney came closest to satisfying Quebec’s demands with the “distinct society” clause of his failed Meech Lake accord. This idea, however, was categorically rejected by the rest of Canada.

Yet, Quebec clearly is a distinct society. This being said, so is Atlantic Canada. So is Ontario, the prairie provinces, British Columbia and the Territories. Any recognition of Quebec’s distinctiveness must recognize the distinctiveness of these regions as well. Furthermore, any cultural powers ceded to Quebec would have to be ceded to Canada’s other regions, and any political powers ceded would also have to be ceded to the other provinces.

Another facet of the Quebec difficulty is Canada’s lingual nature. Since 1982, official bilingualism has been entrenched in the Constitution. Yet, Canada has many more lingual groups other than simply English and French. Replacing official bilingualism with official multilingualism, wherein federal government services could be provided in any language appropriate to the region.

Most importantly, any renegotiation of the Canadian constitution must be fair to all Canadians. Not only the needs of present Canadians must be balanced against the traditions of the past, but the interests and needs of future Canadians – both naturally-born and via immigration – must be addressed as well.

Opening the Canadian constitution is politically risky, and negotiating a new agreement would be intensely difficult, but it will be necessary if we as Canadians are to build a better Canada.

#1 - Teaching History by Kevin Millard