Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

To what end? (II)

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, November 9, 2010 11:00am - 71 Comments

In the process of reviewing Harperland, Allan Gregg considers Mr. Harper’s larger goal.

Upon assuming power—and without a moment’s hesitation—Harper abolished an already-negotiated national daycare program and the landmark First Nations Kelowna Accord. Since then, not only has he refused to resurrect or replace these initiatives, but he has also made it clear that he has absolutely no plans for any significant reforms in health care or the environment. In his tenure, he has roundly turned his back on the tradition of federal-provincial decision making and has never bothered to call a single First Ministers’ Conference. In all these cases, Harper did not do anything. But in not doing, he has revealed a vision that is no less clear—and arguably more radical—than Diefenbaker’s un-hyphenated Canadianism, or Trudeau’s Just Society. Harper’s refusal to use his spending power to enter provincial jurisdiction suggests he is a BNA purist who sees little, if any, role for the federal government in social policy.

Bookmark and Share
  • Emily

    It has nothing to do with the BNA. Harper sees no role for the federal govt in anything, period.

    • Livebloggin Junkie

      If Harper sees no role for the federal government, why does the Liberal Party keep telling me that Harper's priroties are planes and prisons (federal jurisdiction under BNA) while the Liberals care about provincial priorities like education and health care?

      • Emily

        Harper would currently limit the feds to the military and the justice system….whereas Canadians are more concerned about education and health since that directly affects their lives.

        • Livebloggin Junkie

          "Harper sees no role for the federal govt in anything, period. "
          "Harper would currently limit the feds to the military and the justice system…."

          Setting aside these two completely condratictory statements, is Harper randomly selecting priorities for the federal government or is there a logic to why his governement pursues areas the constitution places in the federal jurisdiction, even if as you contend, pursuing provincial issues would be more popular?

          • Emily

            They aren't contradictory, it's all he can do at the moment. It's not all he WANTS to do.

            Yes, there is a logic to it.

            '"Whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or 10 governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be."'

            - Stephen Harper in a 1994 National Citizens Coalition speech.

          • Livebloggin Junkie

            Your quote does not address the logic behind any division of powers between governments, just the scope and scale of the activities undertaken by governments.
            Your quote in no way suggests or supports your assertion that Harper would like to abolish the federal government.
            So, may question restated, why does Harper choose to pursue priorities in areas of federal jurisdiction over areas of provincial jurisdiction? You contend that it has nothing to do with Harper being a strict adherent to the BNA act, so then why? Why, if not to respect the Constitution, or the logic contained therein, does he choose federal areas over provincial?

          • Emily

            Mr Harper is a separatist.

          • Livebloggin Junkie

            You are a petty comment board vandal, incapable of thinking outside of cliches and engaing in a reasoned discussion.

          • Emily

            You just mean you're a Con, and therefore disagree with me.

          • Cats

            Haha dear god no dear.

            Emils never change, you're a hoot.

            But people from your side even roll their eyes at some of the things you say.

            Cats away!

          • Emily

            I don't have a 'side'….that's your first mistake.

          • Livebloggin Junkie

            I'd wager that a considerable number of non-cons would also disagree with your non-sequiter that the Prime Minister is a separatist.
            But, if you are really not here just to post as many absurd one line catch phrases and slogans, why not resume the original discusion and answer a reasonable question.

            Why does Harper choose to pursue priorities in areas of federal jurisdiction over areas of provincial jurisdiction if not to respect the Constitution, or the logic contained therein?

          • Emily

            I'm not concerned about people disagreeing with me.

            And I already answered your question, you just didn't like it.

          • Livebloggin Junkie

            It isn't that I didn't like it, but your answer, that Harper chooses to pursue priorities in areas of federal jurisdiction over areas of provincial jurisdiction because he is a separatist makes no sense what so ever, unless you have a different definition of a separatist than the one in the dictionary

          • Emily

            Canada, like all countries, has it's fault lines. If you press on them often enough and hard enough, sooner or later something will break.

            Harper is only interested in the west, specifically Alberta.

            He is building the 'firewalls', as he said long time ago that he wanted.

          • Orson Bean

            So please explain why he's pushing a National Securities Commission, which is opposed by, umm, Alberta.

          • Emily

            He could institute one instantly if he wanted to, so 'pushing' isn't needed, but it looks good at the upcoming G20.

          • Livebloggin Junkie

            Can you name one policy from the infamous firewall letter that Harper has tried to pursue as Prime Minister or is your only evidence more cliches?

          • Emily

            I realize you're a loyal Con, but if you haven't noticed structural changes in this country since Harper's advent, you're too far gone to listen.

          • LivbloginJunkie

            I realize you're completely without substance and would rather just repeat your tired little slogans then offer an actual example to support the completely untrue things you type

          • TwoYen

            Emily is not a real person. She is a figment of the Liberal War Room's imagination.

          • Be_rad

            Did you ever see the clip from This Hour has 22 Minutes, where Rick Mercer tricks Preston Manning into putting his fingers into that rubber thingy that makes it impossible to extricate himself and he laughs idotically while trying to get out of it? Emily is a finger trap.

          • Emily

            LOL just a realist.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            Wait a sec. You're just figuring that out NOW?!?!?

          • Emily

            If you mean me, no, I was aware of it long time ago. I was in the Reform party years ago.

          • peter

            Typically we get wiser as we age, so have you gone from Reform supporter to what? (other than the obvious to any who frequent this place and referenced yet again above)

          • Emily

            I'm not a member of any party….none of them are suited to the 21st century.

          • Mike T.

            Since the federal government may still spend money as it wishes, constitutional separations are important only if a province wishes to override a federal initiative. If spending is more necessary in health care (or any other area) than, say, national defence, a government isn't being "constitutionally responsible" by not addressing the issue, it's just being bad government.

          • Livebloggin Junkie

            Bad government also occurs when oppurtunistic federal politicians claim health care spending is more necessary then military spending to secure votes.
            The issue isn't even about a strict adherance to the BNA act but a respect for the logic containted in dividing powers between federal and provincial governments so that each pursues areas where it can be most responsive and effective.

          • Mike T.

            If the federal government miscalculates which is more important or doesn't communicate that effectively, then that is the bad government. The constitution and the spending power doesn't come into it.

            And if it were "logical", health care would have been moved to federal jurisdiction decades ago.

        • Be_rad

          Well, that's part of what being a BNA purist would entail. Education and health care are – according to the BNA – provincial jurisdictions. Just because you don't like what he's doing doesn't mean it doesn't have a basis or foundation to it. You can disagree with that philosophical starting point, even make a cogent argument against it, without being all threatened by the thought of granting its existence.

  • burlivespipe

    Tell that to the women in the third world who's access to birth control and safe abortions would be some help in living a longer, healthier life.

  • MostlyCivil

    He's a BNA purist. I'm an Original Six purist.

    In the meantime, we've seen the abolishment of both. One, by legislation (1991), the other, by the California Golden Seals, et al.

    Time for both of us to move on.

    • snaardvark

      guy down the street from me growing up played two games for the golden seals in the 70s. he was a legend on spanish river drive!!

    • peter

      The constitution can NOT be ammended by legislation, only by the ammending formula. A private business (the NHL) can do as its owners wish.

      • MostlyCivil

        The British North America Act (BNA) was no constitution, sirrah. It was supplanted BY the constitution. Which, as you point out, is not so easily abolished.

        Methinks thou hast confused the two.

        • peter

          Now you're playing semantics. The BNA was incorporated into the 1982 Act, which added the Charter etc. From 1867 until 1982 it was the Constitution AND Secs 91 and 92 remain almost unchanged…and I think that's what we're talkin' 'bout here.

          • sourstud

            Don't let the facts get in the way of a very mediocre joke.

  • Amateur Hour

    "Harper’s refusal to use his spending power to enter provincial jurisdiction suggests he is a BNA purist who sees little, if any, role for the federal government in social policy."

    From a governance point of view, Mr. Harper has turned his back on both the 21st and 20th Centuries.

    This really is troublesome.

    • Emily

      Yes, I'll agree with that.

    • Mike T.

      It's certainly an arcane and inappropriate way to deal with many matters. Saying "we can't support a program in that area because its provincial jurisdiction" is about as good an argument as saying "we will fund no initiative that starts with the letter 'w'."

      • tobyornotoby

        There goes the new Winnipeg stadium!

  • Dot

    It could be as simple as Harper avoids areas where consultation/compromise is req'd – and he's not the smartest in the room on that particular subject.

  • Out There

    I've never met the Prime Minister. But, from what I've seen, he doesn't appear to have a larger goal. His goals are:

    - To gain power.
    - To keep power.
    - To vanquish the Liberals.

    Everything else is subordinated to these goals.

    • NorthernPoV

      He seems to be pursuing a ongoing vandalization of our modern civil society. To reduce us to some kind of capitalist feudalism. I see that as the over-arching goal and what you mention are tactics towards that end.

    • TwoYen

      Have you ever met a leader of a major politcal party whose goal was not to gain power and keep it? (Some NDP leaders and the Bloc leaders don't see power as their objective, but these are not major parties). I can't see why Harper is any different from, say, Jean Chretien or Paul Martin.

      • Out There

        Chretien and Martin actually spent some time attempting to govern the country. They didn't seem to exhibit a visceral hatred of their opponents – they just wanted to beat them in the next election, not destroy them.

        Harper is all tactics, all the time.

        • sourstud

          You do remember that Chretien literally choked a protester who opposed him, right?

  • peter

    Living in an area with many native children attending my kid's school the native kids are a cash cow for the school district because they are paid directly by the feds for those kids at whatever the going rate is in your province. As well because of the many ills that plague native culture the local district also gets extra cash for special needs programming. The real positive is my kids now have native friends and playmates (something I was utterly unexposed to growing up) and I think it is a real win for both cultures. I'm not wealthy, so I live in a mixed neighborhood and there's lots of bad apples of all creeds, but the simple fact that my kid's friends and my kids are both learning to accept each other as people with more in common than not, can only bode well for the future. And it is Constitutionaly legal.

    • Sigh

      Given the amount vitriol that is directed towards First Nations peoples by commentors whenever a story about any First Nation appears in the media, I can only hope your kids and your kids friends are the way of the future.

      • McC_

        hear, hear!

  • tedbetts

    I don't see it as having anything to do with the BNA. For example, Gregg cites the Kelowna Accord which is clearly within federal jurisdiction. That isn't even just social policy.

    What I think ties it altogether is Harper realizes his party is in a precarious position internally and externally and doesn't want to make difficult decisions that will alienate different parts of his supporters or turn off the hard won middle class ex-urbanites/suburbanites. I think his regular flip flopping and avoidance on Afghanistan is a perfect example.

    What it is though is an abdication of duty.

    Whether you think the federal government has no role in health care or has an important role, the reality is now that it has a huge role and the funding agreement is coming up. Right this moment, the provinces depend on federal transfers. If you are going to change that, then start giving notice so the provinces can adjust. Don't just avoid the issue. That's the worst.

    But why no meetings at all with premiers? There are tons of issues that are overlapping jurisdiction.

  • kcm

    "Harper’s refusal to use his spending power to enter provincial jurisdiction suggests he is a BNA purist who sees little, if any, role for the federal government in social policy. He has no desire to sit cheek by jowl with provincial premiers because he has no intention of entertaining any act of national enterprise that would see governments actively intervene in the economy. In fact, it seems to me that this refusal to use government as a proactive tool of nation building is the central core of his vision. What makes Harper truly different, therefore, is not just his temperament or personality or even what he has done, but what he has not done—and will not do—majority or no".

    A pretty good and fair review of Martin's book

    So, Harper's the anti-Trudeau – which explains why the con-bots love him so much. Almost makes one believe in Karma ; can we look forward to seeing one of Trudeau's heirs donning the mantle of anti- Harperman?

  • kcm

    "But probably what makes this a good but not great book is that Martin raises the many riddles that make up Stephen Harper, but often provides either meek or contradictory answers to what they mean for Canada and the future. For example, he seems to feel that the Harper Conservatives rationalize their tactics by believing they are pursuing a greater good. After reading Harperland, you know everything you ever wanted to know about these tactics, but it still is not clear what exactly this greater good they are pursuing is supposed to look like."

    Now Mr Gregg seems to have lost the plot. According to Martin's assessment it isn't so much about " pursuing a greater good," as it is about avenging the past. My own feeling is Harper's end game is to poision the wells for any future progressive minded government – which is pretty much my definition of political nihilism.

    • Thwim

      He already knows government doesn't work. Knows it in his gut as a true and infallible statement.
      Now he's in the position where he can try to prove it to all of us.

      • kcm

        What chills me is the number of people in this country who share his feeling about govt, and are more than happy to cheer him on.

  • hosertohoosier

    It is a pretty lousy argument to claim that because Harper dislikes national daycare or Kelowna he is a hardline provincialist. After all, one could be a strong federalist and oppose either of those priorities on ideological grounds.

    Harper is a federalist, he just supports modestly different priorities than the Liberals. More military spending, a greater federal role in criminal justice policy, and lest we forget the billions in infrastructure spending that are Harper's main fiscal legacy so far.

    Harper's successor at the NCC notes that Harper often mused about the possibilities of a right wing Trudeauite nationalist coalition. Indeed we may have seen the beginnings of that after Harper's failure to sweep Quebec, and in the response to the coalition crisis. Harper is probably more of an opportunist than he is a federalist, but simply because he doesn't fit the typical federalist mould does not mean he is anti-Ottawa. He likes Ottawa when it does the things he wants it to.

    • peter

      hoser, I suspect you are not alone in failing to understand the mindset of the civil service. The vast majority of the senior folks are not Conservative, or conservative and most are from centre/left to left side of the political spectrum. Consequently their ideas of "government" and the role of Ottawa therein are generaly miles from where the PMO would like them to be. Idealogues make poor politicians and I am frequently surprised at the pragmatism shown (two resource deals in the past week that fly in the face of idealogy, but demonstarte extreme pragmatism). As a result "government bills", many in the pipeline for decades, represent the departmental thinking rather than the political view…a problem made far worse by the minority status.

    • kcm

      "It is a pretty lousy argument to claim that because Harper dislikes national daycare or Kelowna he is a hardline provincialist. After all, one could be a strong federalist and oppose either of those priorities on ideological grounds."

      Except as AC points out he's not consistently idealogical – more like incoherent. He didn't just stop ND and substitute a $100 per child honorarium [ noway it was a dacare policy]. He also commited to trasferring a billion or so a year to the provinces, and to creating a ton of daycare spaces that have not materialized. He attempts to impede progressives on a regular basis but rarely succeeds in pleasing conservatives as a consequence – not to mention the majority of folks who would just like to see policies or programmes implemented that make sense and are cost effective. I agree with Coyne on this point – Harper is neither fish nor fowl. It never ceases to amaze me where he draws his popularity from; unless you credit him for being a master at making sure the other guy is even more unpopular/disliked than himself.

      • TwoYen

        From my vantage point sitting here in Tokyo Japan watching a national government slowly collapse under massive debt, I'm rather happy that the Harper governemnt did not get sucked into a major daycare entitlement program.

        • kcm

          No, apparently you're happy with a billion$ or so going out the door [yearly] to create daycare spaces that stubbornly refuse to materialize. No one in the business communit wanted anything to do with Harper's dacare plan because it was a dumb idea. Consevatives are easily pleased it seems – not being liberals is such a loft ambition after all.

  • McC_

    "Harper’s refusal to use his spending power to enter provincial jurisdiction suggests he is a BNA purist who sees little, if any, role for the federal government in social policy." For social policy, perhaps; but his government has had no issue whatsoever using lots of the federal spending power to influence Provincial and Municipal infrastructure investment decisions (see 2007's $33billion Building Canada Plan, and 2009's $12billion Infrastructure Stimulus measures)

  • McC_

    I think Dot's proposed explanation — immediately above yours — fits better than Gregg's

  • Dan

    This is one of those times that one has to remind oneself 1) that Harper's goal has always been to have the Conservatives replace the Liberals as the default federal governing party and 2) that he has minority government. To correct 2) without endangering 1) he needs to lay low, get people acclimated to Conservatives in power and take another stab at a majority. That he has not been able to do this in the face of extremely favorable circumstances (a weak, unpopular Liberal leader followed by one whose foreign policy is at least as right-wing as Harper's) makes me wonder when and how Conservatives will start talking about replacing Harper.

    • Thwim

      My mind is changing on that one. I used to think that it'd only take one more failed majority attempt, but I'm coming to the conclusion now that they won't at all because they're so deathly afraid of the party splitting back apart, and Harper seems to be the only one who has the chutzpah to make the bald-faced lies needed to keep it all together.

      • Claudia Lemire

        You are right, he is not going anywhere.

      • tedbetts

        It really does depend on the actual results of the next election, of course. If he loses government (not likely), he's gone. If he gains or stays roughly even (not likely) and keeps government, he stays (although then it gets interesting because his days will be numbered as rivals get a little more bold). Anywhere in between is really a guess at what happens. If he loses 20 seats but keeps government, Harper himself may (like Mulroney) want to go out without ever losing the PMship (and then get to blame everyone else in his memoirs).

        There is also the Trudeau example: resign in a minority situation but due to a sudden election come riding back because a leadership race would be worse!

        "Harper seems to be the only one who has the chutzpah to make the bald-faced lies needed to keep it all together. "

        You haven't been paying much attention if you believe that.

      • Dan

        Perhaps it's chutzpah, but he also the ability to punish disloyalty by relegating troublemakers to the back benches. Maybe it's not a coincidence that one of the touted replacements, Jim Prentice, took off for the private sector. Build some Bay St. connections, fill the coffers, and never worry about the optics of it as if he were a cabinet minister. A stint in private life worked for Harper and for Jean Chretien before him.

  • Be_rad

    While the ending certainly does a good job of illustrating the "chinese finger cuffs", I think it would have been appropriate to warn potential viewers of the filthy language and vile depiction of male-female relations. I feel violated.

    • McC_

      good point. WARNING EXPLICIT KEVIN SMITH CONTENT IN THE ABOVE CLIP.

  • tobyornotoby

    The next time I have an argument about government with an American citizen I'm totally winning by saying "it's in the BNA Act!"

From Macleans