On creative theories

I can only figure that the Globe and Mail's article on Deceivin' Stephen's theory of federal-provincial relations is a test to see whether anybody's paying attention, as it certainly doesn't seem to have any basis in either the Cons' actions in power or their well-known ideology:

A battle of ideologies is driving a rift between Ottawa and the provinces that is just a hint of what is to come, University of Ottawa politics professor Michael Behiels says.

In a stark depiction of current Canadian politics, while the 13 premiers of Canada's provinces and territories meet in Moncton for the Council of Federation, the Prime Minister is on the other side of the country touring the Northwest Territories.

Under the Harper vision of centralized power — with a stronger Senate and representation of regions by strong cabinet ministers — there is little room for the provinces, Dr. Behiels told The Globe...

At heart it is the battle of interstate politics – a decentralized system where power comes from agreements between provinces – and intrastate politics, where a central body dictates the rules from a centralized base.

The first has gained mixed success around the world, Dr. Behiels said: Germany is highly decentralized, Australia has managed to marry the two concepts, and South Africa “seems to be falling apart” under the interstate model.

The latter system is epitomized by the United States.

Canada has always struggled between the two, and now Prime Minister Stephen Harper is forcing the matter to a head.

Now, it's certainly difficult to dispute Harper's contempt for national agreements. From prescription drugs to the Kelowna Accord, the Cons have indeed shown that as far as they're concerned, cross-country provincial agreements which would lead to federal action can't be torn up fast enough.

But it's hard to see how that disinterest in following through on provincial agreements amounts to support for strong central government. After all, the Cons have also made abundantly clear that they don't have the slightest interest in following up on how federal money is spent by the provinces. Which, contrary to Beheils' theory, would hint that the lone change in Harper's previous pro-firewall position is a calculation that the Cons need to occasionally catapult some money over the walls for political benefit.

Not surprisingly, the additional examples put forward by Beheils are no less misguided. After all, any reform which managed to give extra power to the Senate would only be likely to cause added gridlock on the federal scene, diluting the ability of anybody to exercise federal power while pushing more action to the provincial level to compensate.

And the "strong regional Cabinet minister" theory couldn't be much further from the mark as to how the Cons' cabinet has actually operated. (Though in fairness Harper's refusal to allow any of his cabinet ministers to show any strength offers a better example of centralization - even if out of necessity rather than vision - than any put forward by Beheils.)

The real tension at the moment is between provinces which prefer for the most part to see a federal government which acts on their common concerns, and a federal government which would rather leave the provinces to their own devices. And while the Cons' position may indeed seem to render futile any agreement among the provinces now, the problem is with the Cons' contempt for the idea of effective national government, not some excess of Ottawa-based control.