Changes in language policy in the offing for Canada?

[Harold F. Schiffman]

>>From the Toronto Star, Jan. 30, 2006. 01:00 AM

Harper's radical federal vision
CAROL GOAR

There's no need to parse Stephen's Harper's old speeches to right-wing
think-tanks, pore over the writings of his Calgary academic buddies or
listen to conspiracy theorists to find out how he sees Confederation. The
prime minister-designate has spelled it out quite clearly. He thinks
Canada's system of government needs an overhaul. Over the past 22 months,
he has told fellow Conservatives, the provincial premiers and various
other audiences how he plans to do it. His blueprint for "open federalism"
is more radical than he suggests, but less reckless than his critics
claim.

Although Harper's program is rooted in his thinking as national unity
critic for the Reform party a decade ago, the information for this
analysis is drawn solely from Conservative documents. They include the
policy declaration adopted at the party's convention last March, its 2006
election platform and its leader's public statements. Harper's goal is to
alleviate, once and for all, the chronic friction between Ottawa and the
provinces. He says this will require a significant reduction of the
federal government's role in the day-to-day lives of Canadians; a
renegotiation of the way tax dollars are split between Ottawa and the
provinces; and an end to what he describes as federal paternalism.

What the Conservative leader is proposing is entirely consistent with the
Canadian Constitution. It assigns the provinces responsibility for health
care, education, natural resources, municipal matters and the
administration of justice most of the government activities that touch
people directly. It puts the federal government in charge of international
relations, defence, monetary policy, trade and commerce, immigration,
Indian affairs, banking and postal service. Both levels of government have
strayed outside their jurisdiction. Ottawa, in particular, has extended
its reach into health care, post-secondary education, social assistance,
energy pricing, language policy, law enforcement and urban development
over the past 40 years. Harper would reassert the letter of the law.

His scheme would be tidier than the current jumble, but it would stifle
the kind of improvisation sometimes inspired and sometimes clumsy that led
to medicare, equalization and the national child benefit. It would lock in
rules drafted 139 years ago for a rural nation of 3.5 million people. And
it would limit the ability of future national governments to implement
programs that pull the country together. What gives Harper's plan its
appeal is the manifest evidence that the current arrangements aren't
working.

The provinces (with the lucky exception of Alberta) are straining to
balance their budgets in the face of rising health and education costs,
while Ottawa reaps hefty annual surpluses. One doesn't have to be a right
winger or a provincial rights activist to recognize that there is a
mismatch between what Canadians want and where their tax dollars are
going. But aligning public revenues and priorities is a task fraught with
risks.

Although Harper will have no trouble persuading the premiers to come to
the table, he'll soon find as his predecessors have done that the more he
offers, the more they'll demand. He can count on the Bloc Qubcois to give
him the backing he needs in Parliament. But Gilles Duceppe's agenda is not
to make Confederation work better. It is to strengthen Quebec's hand for
secession. The primary vehicle Harper plans to use transferring tax points
to the provinces is feasible but irreversible. Once Ottawa gives up a
portion of its taxing authority, as it did in 1977, it can never get it
back.

The Constitution offers guidance, but not clarity. Many areas of
government activity the environment, job training, culture, housing didn't
exist when it was drawn up. Much of what passes for constitutional law is
judicial interpretation. And some federal and provincial responsibilities
have become so intertwined that it would be folly to take them apart. The
biggest danger is that Harper could take a dysfunctional federation and
turn it into a permanently weak one. A few misguided concessions to the
premiers would rob Ottawa of its ability to counter the centrifugal forces
that have been tearing at Canada's core for decades. The new prime
minister is intelligent and pragmatic. But he is setting out on a
treacherous path.

Given the real hazards that lie ahead, this is no time to be debating
imaginary ones. Harper is not proposing a wholesale hand-off of federal
powers or an American-style system of government. He is not seeking to gut
Ottawa or dismantle medicare. Those who want to keep Canada strong and
cohesive need to be clear-sighted, strategic and smart.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1138404334298&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795