The attack on Frances Widdowson shouldn’t surprise anyone. I have been back in Canada for three years and have witnessed many examples of government and a willing population that demonstrates a lack concern regarding individual freedom. In Halifax, in a 12 month period, the police issued over 20% of all motorists a ticket and yet nobody complained. Corruption by politicians and yet nobody complained. Reports of waste of millions of tax dollars and yet nobody complained. I have been told by many people I have talked to who invariably state that Canadians are a passive people. They say that without any idea how dangerous that is. Ms Widdowson touched on a point that should be obvious too anyone and that is all members of society must grow at near the same rate and be given the same opportunity to do so. That it is silly to believe that segments of society can hold on to beliefs that keep them from progressing and contributing to the over all good of that society while at the same time taking advantage of the progress that the society makes.
Do you know where I can locate some resources that trace the debates surrounding the provisions that were to be included in federal and provincial areas of jurisdiction? In other words, why did the founders choose to make health care a provincial as opposed to a federal area of jurisdiction? Were there some founders that argued that criminal law should be a provincial matter?
I’ve read your book on Canada’s Founding Debates and found it very helpful. I’m just hoping to add some missing pieces to the “founding puzzle.”
I don’t know of anyone who argued that criminal law should be a provincial matter. The founders had the example of the U.S. where criminal law is a state matter. But I do not know of anyone who argues for it in Canada. Good question. This is something that Peter Russell might be able to tell you more about. (I haven’t read everything!)
I presume that Cartier argued for health as a provincial matter because hospitals in Quebec were run by the Church, or by orders of nuns. It was no doubt seen as as aspect of the Catholic culture of Quebec. Another good question.
The Parliament of Canada was to get only matters that affected each and every person in the federation equally. I guess you could say that’s why the criminal law fell to the national level. We are all interested in law and order, the public safety, and I think you could say that we all have an interest in upholding the idea that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
I found your blog.
Hello,
I’m a producer at TVO who was behind a discussion around Widdowson’s and and Howard’s book on the Agenda with Steve Paikin.
Here is a link:
http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.woa?video?TAWSP_Dbt_20081127_779378_0
Regards,
WS
The attack on Frances Widdowson shouldn’t surprise anyone. I have been back in Canada for three years and have witnessed many examples of government and a willing population that demonstrates a lack concern regarding individual freedom. In Halifax, in a 12 month period, the police issued over 20% of all motorists a ticket and yet nobody complained. Corruption by politicians and yet nobody complained. Reports of waste of millions of tax dollars and yet nobody complained. I have been told by many people I have talked to who invariably state that Canadians are a passive people. They say that without any idea how dangerous that is. Ms Widdowson touched on a point that should be obvious too anyone and that is all members of society must grow at near the same rate and be given the same opportunity to do so. That it is silly to believe that segments of society can hold on to beliefs that keep them from progressing and contributing to the over all good of that society while at the same time taking advantage of the progress that the society makes.
Hi Dr. Ajzenstat,
Do you know where I can locate some resources that trace the debates surrounding the provisions that were to be included in federal and provincial areas of jurisdiction? In other words, why did the founders choose to make health care a provincial as opposed to a federal area of jurisdiction? Were there some founders that argued that criminal law should be a provincial matter?
I’ve read your book on Canada’s Founding Debates and found it very helpful. I’m just hoping to add some missing pieces to the “founding puzzle.”
Best wishes,
Kalen
Kalen Hastings:
I don’t know of anyone who argued that criminal law should be a provincial matter. The founders had the example of the U.S. where criminal law is a state matter. But I do not know of anyone who argues for it in Canada. Good question. This is something that Peter Russell might be able to tell you more about. (I haven’t read everything!)
I presume that Cartier argued for health as a provincial matter because hospitals in Quebec were run by the Church, or by orders of nuns. It was no doubt seen as as aspect of the Catholic culture of Quebec. Another good question.
The Parliament of Canada was to get only matters that affected each and every person in the federation equally. I guess you could say that’s why the criminal law fell to the national level. We are all interested in law and order, the public safety, and I think you could say that we all have an interest in upholding the idea that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
J.A.