What do we want to be?

 

In his excellent book about the US Civil War, ‘Battle Cry of Freedom’, James M. McPherson writes the following about the aftermath of that war, “Before 1861, the two words ’United States’ were generally rendered as a plural noun, ‘the United States are a republic’. The war marked the transition of the United States to a singular noun.” The US Civil War was fought for states’ rights, in this case the right to own slaves.

Why is this relevant to Canada? Because Canada is also being challenged by a movement of provincial rights.  At a time where provinces (and territories) are demanding more money from the federal government, they also want more autonomy from federal actions. Alberta has toyed with a law to that effect.  Quebec has trampled on several constitutional rights by use of the ‘not withstanding’ clause.

You have to wonder what the provinces really want in this struggle. Do they want total control of their rights above federal law? Do they want to control their own destiny as the Confederate States of America (CSA) did in 1861? (By the way, the states’ rights were a key policy of the southern states but were one of the key weaknesses of the CSA). Do they want to bleed the federal treasury dry with their demands for ever more money?  Do they want to reduce the federal government nothing more than a money pit, and oh yeah, national defence?  Do they want to abrogate the Supreme Court of Canada from hearing and judging constitutional challenges? Their increasing use of the not withstanding clause would seem to indicate that, in some cases, this last is true. Do they want one Canada or ten or twelve individual entities? 

Nonetheless what do the people want? Surely the majority of us want one Canada. Surely the effort to win over Quebec during the last referendum showed us that we want to stay together as one country; one that includes Quebec and Alberta. Surely, we want one set of overall laws that govern all of us equally more than twelve sets of laws that divide us.

There are a number of factors that divide us. Limits on interprovincial trade are one. Perhaps we should be looking for something like the US interstate commerce laws to try and govern this issue. The provinces would, of course, loudly protest against such a move, but perhaps this is where a strong federal government can overrule. We complain about health care in this country, too often comparing ourselves to the United States (even although our lifespans are longer, and our infant mortality is lower than that country). Our model, however, should be government health systems in Europe. The difference? European health systems are national in scope, not provincial.

You may have discovered in this and previous writings that I am strongly opposed the section 33 (the not-withstanding clause) of the Canadian Constitution. And you would be right. I find it a real threat to our rights that has been used for some of the more ridiculous abuses in Canada (to limit the size of the Toronto City Council? Really!). However, the thought that one of our national political parties would threaten to use it is abhorrent. It is quite conceivable that such a government could limit or eliminate every right we think we have before the law. Even if it were only effective for the five years allowed under the Constitution, it could badly change the way our entire society works.

What, you may ask, do I want by these writings? I want the elimination of the ‘not withstanding clause’ and a federal government that is strong enough to ensure that equality and opportunity are available from coast to coast in this country.