Apolitical Staples

Trust Andrew to ask the hard questions. Is Canada a nation - wow - that is a thought provoking question.

So my first thought is yes - but then on further thought, I think about the term nation - and what it means and I begin to think perhaps we have lost our nationhood - after all, in the liberal mentality, trying to be all things to all people, we have become a disjointed group of people, divisive over religion, government, culture, provincial wealth…..

Perhaps we have become 12 nations within one country - after all separatism has reared its ugly head in several areas of the country.

At the risk of bringing down all the anti-americans here, how often do you hear Oregon saying - we need to separate……..

Excellent Question - I will be thinking more on that one - good discussion topic..

It all depends on what is meant by nationalism. Trudeau was very much against ethnic nationalism, but was supportive of territorial nationalism. He wanted to reshape Canada as a multicultural state and develop that as a substitute for the narrow, ethnic nationalism he grew up with in Quebec.

I would like your thought also about Mr. Harper’s provincialist tendencies (something Coyne mentions disapprovingly but does not dwell on) given he is talking to the provinces about limiting federal spending power constitutionally. That act would do more to harm pan-Canadianism than anything Trudeau ever did, in my opinion.

Canada has always been a group of “nations” within a nation. The Dominion of Canada was, many times, called a “confederation of regions”, each with its own guiding principles and values, but with our national government deciding our foreign policy and over arching protection policies. The reason why Quebec never signed the constitution is because their leaders know that it fundamentally changes the structure of the country from a “confederation of regions” to a single state country. The provinces traditionally held the greatest power up until the Trudeau era when it became apparent that socialism required a stronger central government to “guide” the people into the compliance. Although I love Canada,(my family came when we lost the American revolution),I do think that great damage was done to our land with the disposal of the B.N.A. and the adoption of the “Bill of Rights and Constitution”. Most people don’t see the two as threatening at all but it’s not the words or the thoughts that count it is the fact that the B.N.A. told the government what rights it had over the people and the people got all the other rights,there by limiting the governments power over the people. The Constitution and Bill of Right tell the people what rights they have left and the government gets everything else, in effect reversing the balance of power.

Pan-Canadianism…hmmm. I assume that you mean this as a synonym for nationalism so I will answer your question based on that assumption. I don’t that a nation is defined by its social programs or by how they are funded. We are still a nation even though one province has state run day care and others don’t. That some have state run auto insurance and some don’t. That some have state run liquor stores and some don’t. And on and on I could go. If the provinces raised their own money for their programs then Canada could work better.

Andrew Coyne is concerned with provincialism as a challenge to Canadian Nationalism ( I will grant you that you don’t seem to be). My main point is, if there is no strong federal government to “speak for Canada”, who will? Not the provinces, they are too busy trying to suck the feds dry of money and power to consolidate their own little fiefs. Mr. Harper seems to me to be an agent of that provincialist tendency. To me that is very troubling (as is, by the way, Jack’s provincialist leanings as well).

If the provinces and the federal government can come to an agreement on who does what and the federal government creates space for the provinces to raise their own money to do it then the bickering who stop (ok it would be lessened)

There seems to be some rather glaring historical innaccuracies floating around here.

Charles writes: The reason why Quebec never signed the constitution is because their leaders know that it fundamentally changes the structure of the country from a “confederation of regions” to a single state country.

This is patently false. The Charter and other sections of the Constitution Act, 1982 did not change the distribution of legislative powers in the slightest. Period. At most, the Charter served to add a constitutional limit to the powers of all legislatures and Parliament as it became possible for the Courts to strike down laws that were deemed to violate rights and freedoms enumerated in the Chater.

The provinces traditionally held the greatest power up until the Trudeau era when it became apparent that socialism required a stronger central government to “guide” the people into the compliance.

Again, this is false. The provinces were given powers that weren’t considered altogether important in the 19th century. With the postwar expansion of the welfare state (which began well before Trudeau, by the way), jurisdiction over hospitals and education became increasingly important, but your interpretation remains highly ideologically biased.

Although I love Canada,(my family came when we lost the American revolution),I do think that great damage was done to our land with the disposal of the B.N.A. and the adoption of the “Bill of Rights and Constitution”.

The B.N.A. Act was not and has been “disposed” of. It was merely renamed as Constitution Act, 1867 whereas the 1982 document contained a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Your knowledge of Canadian legal history of utterly dismal.

Most people don’t see the two as threatening at all but it’s not the words or the thoughts that count it is the fact that the B.N.A. told the government what rights it had over the people and the people got all the other rights,there by limiting the governments power over the people. The Constitution and Bill of Right tell the people what rights they have left and the government gets everything else, in effect reversing the balance of power.

The B.N.A. Act in no way defined the “rights” of any institution or anyone. I suggest you read it. Indeed, Section 91 states:

It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

In other words, Parliament may make laws on any matters not assigned exclusively to the provinces. As in the UK, parliamentary supremecy is the legal principle.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand - I’m quite happy to call Canada a nation and hear that echoed by many. That doesn’t preclude the existence of nations within Canada, be they aboriginal or Quebecois; Canada will never be a “simple” nation defined by a dominant ethnicity/language like Japan or Sweden.

Greg, Sections 91 and 92 of the BNA Act already define “who does what” and for the most part we stick to that. It is unrealistic to think we can easily update these sections - they reflected what was thought best in 1867, and it seems questionable to suggest that a national government should not be involved to some degree in post-secondary education and research, infrastructure, and health and social services.

Indeed, the appropriate arrangement would not be renewed “watertight compartments” like Sections 91 and 92, but the addition of concurrent areas of jurisdiction in which both levels of government must cooperate, as in federal states such as Germany with more modern constitutions.

According to Treaty No. 8, “…the said Indians do hereby cede, release, surrender, and yield up to the Government of the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors for ever all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever, to the lands included within the following limits, that is to say:-…”.

Also according to Treaty No. 8, “It is further agreed between Her Majesty and Her said Indian subjects that such portions of the reserves and lands above indicated as may at any time be required for public works, buildings, railways, or roads of whatsoever nature may be appropriated for that purpose by Her Majesty’s Government of the Dominion of Canada, due compensation being made to the Indians for the value of any improvements thereon, and an equivalent in land, money or other consideration for the area of the reserve so appropriated.”.

According to Canadian Press on November 11, “The Dene Tha’, who signed onto Treaty 8 in 1900, have about 2,500 band members in Alberta, B.C. and the Northwest Territories.”.

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/dominion.htm

“Q. Is it still correct to use ‘Dominion of Canada’ as Canada’s proper, long-form name?

A. No. The Canadian government no longer regards ‘Dominion of Canada’ as the country’s proper name, and has deliberately not used the title in several decades.”

Where is the Seat of the Government of the Dominion of Canada if not Ottawa?