Is provincial autonomy a threat to confederation? On the contrary, the founding fathers believed strong provincial powers were necessary for the long-term future of the country..On November 9th, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney announced the creation of a ‘Fair Deal Panel’ to examine ways to promote autonomy for Alberta within Canada. The panel will examine a range of possibilities from a provincial police force to the ability to opt-out from federal cost-sharing programs. .The announcement has already initiated an important public conversation about the constitutional balance of provincial and federal powers..One of the most strongly-worded critiques so far has come from former Alberta premier, and now Opposition Leader Rachel Notley. She argued that the announcement is “sowing the seeds of separation” and suggested that the current premier “needs to accept that Alberta is part of Canada.” Former Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne similarly suggested Kenney was after “some kind of illusory separation.”. FORBES: What would the Founding Fathers say about Alberta’s Fair Deal Panel?Former Premier Rachel Notley and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (source Flickr) .What such critiques do not account for is the fact that strong provincial autonomy within Canada has long and strong historical precedence..Indeed, a closer look at Canada’s history reveals that an element of decentralization is one of the founding principles of confederation itself. When Canada’s founders began negotiating confederation in 1864, one of the major challenges was to come up with a division of powers that would enable inter-provincial cooperation while still safeguarding regional interests. The agreement they produced – which became the British North America Act (1867) – captures their attempt to balance these competing needs..In his 2018 book Reconsidering Confederation, historian Daniel Heidt argued that few confederation delegates were interested in concentrating power at the federal level. Instead, Heidt said they ultimately chose a decentralized structure which “provided considerable flexibility for varied ways of being Canadian.”.What kind of flexibility is he talking about? Take a look at the British North America Act’s sections on provincial powers (sections 92, 93, 94, and 95). What you will find is an extensive list of important powers assigned to provincial jurisdiction, including education, healthcare, marriage, property rights, civil rights, taxation, municipalities, and even immigration. This list is extensive and clearly spelt out for a reason; the founders wanted to protect these key provincial powers from federal incursion..Many of these powers were singled out (education and healthcare, for example) because of the cultural differences between the provinces in the 1860s. In Ontario, public schools had a Protestant flair, including Bible reading and doctrinal instruction. In Quebec, schools and hospitals were historically administered by the Roman Catholic Church. By relegating these issues to provincial jurisdiction, they would better be able to account for local needs..Historian Arthur Silver explained that for many of Canada’s founders – especially many Quebecois leaders – the nation-building side of confederation paled in comparison to securing key provincial powers..“We are accustomed to thinking of confederation as a national unification transforming a scattered collection of colonies into a single people under a strong national government. … French Canadians in the 1860s did not share this point of view.”. Sir John A McDonaldSir John A. McDonald (source: WikiCommons) .Many English-speaking Canadians also demanded a decentralized government. Paul Romney’s 1999 book, Getting it Wrong, focused on Ontario’s reformers like George Brown and Oliver Mowat, and explained why provincial powers were paramount to them. As British colonists who fought for their colony’s self-rule (a principle known at the time as “responsible government”), they believed that confederation would enable a form of self-rule by enshrining their provincial rights in the constitution..Reformers didn’t seek autonomy from London just so they could turn around and hand their power over to Ottawa. The BNA’s clear division of powers was designed to ensure that Ottawa would not be able to overstep its boundaries into provincial jurisdiction..Some Canadians today have misused the concept of provincial rights as an excuse to prevent infrastructure development between the provinces. What would the founders say of it?.The founders clearly wanted to ensure that goods could travel freely between provinces. Section 121 of the BNA read: “All Articles of Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.” They even stipulated that the federal parliament could alter existing provincial trade restrictions (section 122)..One of the main benefits to joining confederation in the first place was to facilitate greater economic cooperation between the British North American colonies. The big infrastructure promise at the time was the intercolonial railway (Section 145), and later the transcontinental railway that stretched coast-to-coast by 1885.. JAY HILL: East and West are worlds apartAlberta Premier Jason Kenney speaks to the Manning Centre in Red Deer (source: Western Standard) .Founders from all parts of Canada recognized the benefits of inter-provincial commerce to their own people. For example, Peter Mitchell of New Brunswick said in 1866 that the vast natural resources of the West “would conduce to our greatness. Their wealth and their exports must increase our commerce, and our ships must find employment in the prosecution of their trade.”.George Brown of Ontario made a similar argument in 1865..“I heartily go for the union, because it will throw down the barriers of trade and give us control of a market of four millions of people. What one thing has contributed so much to the wondrous material progress of the United States as the free passage of their products from one state to another?”.Unfortunately, some Canadians have gotten provincial rights backwards from the founders’ vision. They want to assert provincial powers to stop the flow of goods and assert federal powers to stop self-governance. History shows us a different way..Joseph Quesnel’s recent column in the Western Standard argued that what Alberta actually needs is a strong centralized government – albeit one willing to promote national infrastructure projects. The founders would agree, as far as inter-provincial trade is concerned. But there are two sides to this coin: let’s not forget the importance of decentralization in areas that the constitution allows..While prioritizing federal oversight when it came to security, trade, and infrastructure, Canada’s founders also recognized that the country would be stronger if the various provinces had the ability to govern themselves in the way that worked best for them. They understood that federalism required a careful balance. .For example, the same George Brown who emphasized breaking down inter-provincial trade barriers also argued for strong self-governing provinces. In that same speech in 1865, Brown said that confederation also “secures to the people of each province full control over the administration of their internal affairs.” He went on to explain the importance of this division of powers for the purpose of national unity. “The questions that used to excite the most hostile feelings among us have been taken away from the general legislature [federal] and placed under the control of the local bodies [provincial].”.The “Fair Deal Panel” provides a unique opportunity to explore the essential and legitimate role of provincial powers within confederation. As in Brown’s day, a fresh look at our own provincial powers may even serve to address some of the “hostile feelings” of our time. In that sense, stronger provinces (working within their proper jurisdiction) can mean a stronger united Canada.. Trudeau on WE scandal: Case closed .Of course, restoring a balance will require the federal government to fulfill its proper constitutional role as well. Many disaffected Albertans will no doubt need reassurance that the federal government actually sees our province as a valued and equal member of Confederation. In the meantime, however, the province is right to explore whatever options we have within our own jurisdiction..Canada’s founders did not see provincial autonomy as a threat to confederation; they saw it as an essential part of what made confederation work. If we truly want to preserve and cherish what the founders passed down to us, it is essential that we understand the balance they struck and restore that balance in our own day..James Forbes is a columnist for the Western Standard.
Is provincial autonomy a threat to confederation? On the contrary, the founding fathers believed strong provincial powers were necessary for the long-term future of the country..On November 9th, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney announced the creation of a ‘Fair Deal Panel’ to examine ways to promote autonomy for Alberta within Canada. The panel will examine a range of possibilities from a provincial police force to the ability to opt-out from federal cost-sharing programs. .The announcement has already initiated an important public conversation about the constitutional balance of provincial and federal powers..One of the most strongly-worded critiques so far has come from former Alberta premier, and now Opposition Leader Rachel Notley. She argued that the announcement is “sowing the seeds of separation” and suggested that the current premier “needs to accept that Alberta is part of Canada.” Former Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne similarly suggested Kenney was after “some kind of illusory separation.”. FORBES: What would the Founding Fathers say about Alberta’s Fair Deal Panel?Former Premier Rachel Notley and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (source Flickr) .What such critiques do not account for is the fact that strong provincial autonomy within Canada has long and strong historical precedence..Indeed, a closer look at Canada’s history reveals that an element of decentralization is one of the founding principles of confederation itself. When Canada’s founders began negotiating confederation in 1864, one of the major challenges was to come up with a division of powers that would enable inter-provincial cooperation while still safeguarding regional interests. The agreement they produced – which became the British North America Act (1867) – captures their attempt to balance these competing needs..In his 2018 book Reconsidering Confederation, historian Daniel Heidt argued that few confederation delegates were interested in concentrating power at the federal level. Instead, Heidt said they ultimately chose a decentralized structure which “provided considerable flexibility for varied ways of being Canadian.”.What kind of flexibility is he talking about? Take a look at the British North America Act’s sections on provincial powers (sections 92, 93, 94, and 95). What you will find is an extensive list of important powers assigned to provincial jurisdiction, including education, healthcare, marriage, property rights, civil rights, taxation, municipalities, and even immigration. This list is extensive and clearly spelt out for a reason; the founders wanted to protect these key provincial powers from federal incursion..Many of these powers were singled out (education and healthcare, for example) because of the cultural differences between the provinces in the 1860s. In Ontario, public schools had a Protestant flair, including Bible reading and doctrinal instruction. In Quebec, schools and hospitals were historically administered by the Roman Catholic Church. By relegating these issues to provincial jurisdiction, they would better be able to account for local needs..Historian Arthur Silver explained that for many of Canada’s founders – especially many Quebecois leaders – the nation-building side of confederation paled in comparison to securing key provincial powers..“We are accustomed to thinking of confederation as a national unification transforming a scattered collection of colonies into a single people under a strong national government. … French Canadians in the 1860s did not share this point of view.”. Sir John A McDonaldSir John A. McDonald (source: WikiCommons) .Many English-speaking Canadians also demanded a decentralized government. Paul Romney’s 1999 book, Getting it Wrong, focused on Ontario’s reformers like George Brown and Oliver Mowat, and explained why provincial powers were paramount to them. As British colonists who fought for their colony’s self-rule (a principle known at the time as “responsible government”), they believed that confederation would enable a form of self-rule by enshrining their provincial rights in the constitution..Reformers didn’t seek autonomy from London just so they could turn around and hand their power over to Ottawa. The BNA’s clear division of powers was designed to ensure that Ottawa would not be able to overstep its boundaries into provincial jurisdiction..Some Canadians today have misused the concept of provincial rights as an excuse to prevent infrastructure development between the provinces. What would the founders say of it?.The founders clearly wanted to ensure that goods could travel freely between provinces. Section 121 of the BNA read: “All Articles of Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.” They even stipulated that the federal parliament could alter existing provincial trade restrictions (section 122)..One of the main benefits to joining confederation in the first place was to facilitate greater economic cooperation between the British North American colonies. The big infrastructure promise at the time was the intercolonial railway (Section 145), and later the transcontinental railway that stretched coast-to-coast by 1885.. JAY HILL: East and West are worlds apartAlberta Premier Jason Kenney speaks to the Manning Centre in Red Deer (source: Western Standard) .Founders from all parts of Canada recognized the benefits of inter-provincial commerce to their own people. For example, Peter Mitchell of New Brunswick said in 1866 that the vast natural resources of the West “would conduce to our greatness. Their wealth and their exports must increase our commerce, and our ships must find employment in the prosecution of their trade.”.George Brown of Ontario made a similar argument in 1865..“I heartily go for the union, because it will throw down the barriers of trade and give us control of a market of four millions of people. What one thing has contributed so much to the wondrous material progress of the United States as the free passage of their products from one state to another?”.Unfortunately, some Canadians have gotten provincial rights backwards from the founders’ vision. They want to assert provincial powers to stop the flow of goods and assert federal powers to stop self-governance. History shows us a different way..Joseph Quesnel’s recent column in the Western Standard argued that what Alberta actually needs is a strong centralized government – albeit one willing to promote national infrastructure projects. The founders would agree, as far as inter-provincial trade is concerned. But there are two sides to this coin: let’s not forget the importance of decentralization in areas that the constitution allows..While prioritizing federal oversight when it came to security, trade, and infrastructure, Canada’s founders also recognized that the country would be stronger if the various provinces had the ability to govern themselves in the way that worked best for them. They understood that federalism required a careful balance. .For example, the same George Brown who emphasized breaking down inter-provincial trade barriers also argued for strong self-governing provinces. In that same speech in 1865, Brown said that confederation also “secures to the people of each province full control over the administration of their internal affairs.” He went on to explain the importance of this division of powers for the purpose of national unity. “The questions that used to excite the most hostile feelings among us have been taken away from the general legislature [federal] and placed under the control of the local bodies [provincial].”.The “Fair Deal Panel” provides a unique opportunity to explore the essential and legitimate role of provincial powers within confederation. As in Brown’s day, a fresh look at our own provincial powers may even serve to address some of the “hostile feelings” of our time. In that sense, stronger provinces (working within their proper jurisdiction) can mean a stronger united Canada.. Trudeau on WE scandal: Case closed .Of course, restoring a balance will require the federal government to fulfill its proper constitutional role as well. Many disaffected Albertans will no doubt need reassurance that the federal government actually sees our province as a valued and equal member of Confederation. In the meantime, however, the province is right to explore whatever options we have within our own jurisdiction..Canada’s founders did not see provincial autonomy as a threat to confederation; they saw it as an essential part of what made confederation work. If we truly want to preserve and cherish what the founders passed down to us, it is essential that we understand the balance they struck and restore that balance in our own day..James Forbes is a columnist for the Western Standard.
