At the time, I thought it just a clever line.
These days, I see it as an ominous prediction.
During travels to cover the 2008 federal election campaign, I found myself in Calgary chatting with the wise and erudite University of Calgary political scientist David Taras.
The Liberals, he said, are “the party of the Charter,” meaning Pierre Trudeau’s 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its legal protections for citizens against unfair treatment by the state or institutions.
The Conservatives are “the party of the BNA Act,” meaning the 1867 British North America Act passed by the British Parliament to create a nation in the northern half of North America.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
The BNA Act assigned powers to both levels of government and while the intention of confederation’s creators was to establish a strong central government and weak provinces, the evolution of politics over the past 145 years means that the responsibilities assigned to provinces — health, education, natural resources, labour and roads among them — have become the key and expensive mainstays of a modern industrialized state.
It means Ottawa increasingly has had to transfer money to the provinces to pay for these services and with the cash has come a demand from federal governments to have a say in provincial jurisdictions, putting strings on the money and demanding national program standards.
Prime minister Stephen Harper clearly is inclined to reverse that centralizing Big Ottawa trend, insisting that provinces take more responsibility for their areas of jurisdiction. He has all but dropped federal-provincial first ministers’ meetings, where national plans were made. From health to agriculture, he is now running a government intent on reducing Ottawa’s footprint.
So in this evolving decentralized province-centric federation, who will speak for Canada?
That question has taken on some urgency with the recent victory of the sovereignist Parti Québeçois in the province.
Premier-designate Pauline Marois is making it clear that her strategy will be to wrest as much power from Ottawa as possible, and when Harper says “no,” she will use that as an argument for Quebec separation.
Last week, Alberta opposition leader Danielle Smith of the Wild Rose Party said she sees a natural alliance between Quebec and Alberta in trying to weaken Ottawa. What Quebec gets, Alberta should want as well.
It harkens back to Harper’s Alberta “firewall” days.
According to the Prime Minister’s Office, Harper already has called Marois to signal Ottawa is prepared to continue on the path of power devolution, following, yes, the BNA Act divisions created for a much smaller, pre-industrial, less complex Canada than now exists.
“The prime minister added that in the interest of both Quebec and Canada, he plans to join forces with the Quebec government to implement measures aimed at growing the Quebec economy, with each remaining within its respective jurisdictional boundaries,” said the PMO statement.
In a way it is a vision of a Canada that is mainly a collection of more powerful provinces, a country that is less than the sum of its parts.
If Lester Pearson and Trudeau were the main centralizers in modern Canadian history, this Conservative government appears bent on sharply reversing that trend.
It is music to the ears of provincial politicians with dreams of strutting their stuff on a bigger stage without ever leaving home.
But who will speak for Canada?
