Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

FELDSTED: Quebec recognized the incremental incursion of federal governments on provincial subjects and stood up for herself. We see the results of ensuing negotiations


One of the least understood portions of our constitution is the obligations of the federal government set out under Section 91:

91. 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; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated ...

... and any matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated of a local or private Nature ... assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

We need to pause here and consider three very important principles:
  • Under the initial clause of Section 91, it is clear that federal authority cannot override the classes of subjects assigned to the provinces;
  • Under the final clause of Section 91 it is equally clear that classes of subject assigned to provinces cannot be construed as authority to override enumerated federal classes of subject; and
  • The lists of classes assigned are not powers. They are classes of subjects assigned to the federal government as areas of responsibility in which to act on behalf of the people. It is a list of federal duties to the nation that cannot be legally transferred to the provinces.

We have long lived under a false premise, encouraged by successive federal governments, that the federal government is a higher authority than the provinces.

That is not so.

“Peace, order and good government” are the words used in section 91 of the British North America Act of 1867 (now Constitution Act, 1867) to define the Canadian Parliament’s lawmaking authority in relation to provincial authority. The phrase’s vague and broad definition of Parliament’s authority over provincial matters has caused tensions between federal and provincial governments over the scope of powers since Confederation. It has come to be considered the Canadian counterpart to the United States’ “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
~~ The Canadian Encyclopedia ~~



If you look at the list of subjects assigned to the federal government, they are either beyond the capability of a single province to administer, or are intended to prevent the chaos of having ten different sets of laws, for the conduct of ordinary affairs.

Federal subjects are different from but not superior to provincial subjects.

Quebec woke up to this some time ago, and recognized the incremental incursion of federal governments on provincial subjects, and stood up for herself. We see the results of ensuing negotiations.


Federal governments have used the first line of the Section 91 preamble to make laws on subjects not enumerated as provincial:

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;

Federal governments refer to this section as the Peace, Order and Good Government section, which gives it authority to expand the subjects assigned to it ... but then tries to avoid the responsibilities included.

For example, the federal government has no constitutional authority to spend funds on international aid. It cannot show Canadians that spending huge sums on foreign aid is in their best interests. It is ludicrous for a federal government to include large expenditures in foreign aid in a deficit budget.

It is in the best interests of Canadians to avoid deficit budgets and pay down the national debt.

The federal government is not in the compassion business and cannot make a case for the necessity of foreign aid when we have people living in poverty, unable to afford homes, suffering untreated mental ailments and insufficient medical personnel to meet the demands of an aging population.

Providing compassion to foreigners it refuses to extend to residents is not on.

The federal government is responsible for indigenous people, access to clean water, education, health care, housing, and municipal services.  They are failing thousands of people in hundreds of locations.

That is a constitutional responsibility. Foreign aid is not.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to participate in the United Nations, or to spend money on the United Nations, or any of its agencies. The UN has proven completely incapable of protecting any nation from internal rebellion, or outside attack, and has about 65 million refugees to prove it.

The Canadian government is not in the business of cleaning up after UN failures.

NATO and NORAD are different as they are organizations aimed at mutual defence of members and part of the federal obligation to protect Canada.

Stayed tuned as I will shortly be discussing, and taking a look at, the basic list of subjects assigned to provinces.


John Feldsted
Political Consultant & Strategist
Winnipeg, Manitoba

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

GORDON F. D. WILSON: When The Trick Masquerades as The Treat

Thirty-seven years ago, Halloween 1987, I became the leader of the BC Liberal Party.   British Columbia was badly polarized. Social Credit held one side and the NDP the other. It had been twelve years, 1975, since Liberal MLAs Garde Gardom, Pat McGeer, and Alan Williams had walked away from their party to join Social Credit, one year after the lone Progressive Conservative MLA Hugh Curtis had abandoned his party to sit with Bill Bennett, the son and heir apparent to long-serving BC Premier, WAC Bennett.   An unwritten agreement by the biggest Canadian political shareholders, the federal Liberals and Conservatives, decided that if British Columbia was to remain a lucrative franchise from a revenue perspective, they couldn’t risk splitting the electoral vote and electing the real enemy, the NDP, so no resources would be used to finance either a Liberal or Conservative party provincially.   “There are two sides to every street,” I was told by a very prominent Canadian businessman who cont

FORSETH: You Have To Be A Bit Crazy

  Ward and his wife Carleen celebrating his win on election night.   In March of this year, I took on the role of Campaign Manager for BC Conservative candidate Ward Stamer.  It’s the third time I’ve had the opportunity as I took on the role for Peter Sharp in 2013, and for Dennis Giesbrecht in 2020. Now let me tell you, in the past, a BC Conservative campaign team generally consisted of myself, the candidate and one or two helpers – and very little in the way of a campaign budget. Thankfully, a benefit of having spent 30+ years in the broadcast media afforded me the ability to do ad copy and write candidate speeches, and prep both Dennis and Peter to deal with the media – it’s also something I have always enjoyed. That was part of my duties this time around as well, however having a team of a dozen and a half volunteers meant that for the first time we had people available to ID our supporters, put together and install campaign signs, distribute campaign literature, and help out at ou

Rustad will support policy for 'everyday' people, otherwise work to bring down NDP

  Conservative Party of B.C. John Rustad Tuesday (Oct. 29) said his party would support government policies that support "average, everyday working" persons in B.C., but also repeated earlier promises to bring down the B.C. NDP government under Premier David Eby. "If there are things that are moved forward that will improve lives for those people, we would be looking at support it," Rustad said. "But if he's going to carry forward with the destructive policies that he has, then yes, we are going to look at every opportunity possible to bring him down as soon as possible."  CLICK HERE for the full story

Labels

Show more