Six days before the Throne Speech was read in the House of Commons, the Quebec Court of Appeal did Canadian taxpayers a favour by ruling that Employment Insurance payments for maternity and parental leave are not a valid exercise of Ottawa's power. The court ruled that the federal government's constitutional responsibility over unemployment insurance cannot be used for other social security or welfare programs.

The federal government acquired its custody over unemployment insurance in 1940 through a constitutional amendment to which all provinces consented. This resulted from the Supreme Court of Canada's decision to invalidate the 1935 Employment and Social Insurance Act as violating provincial jurisdiction.

Mackenzie King was criticized in the House of Commons by the Tory and CCF leaders, who were both disappointed that federal power was being expanded only to cover unemployment insurance. Why not seek even more power, to pave the way for all kinds of federal social programs? "If we had tried to go further," replied the Prime Minister, "some or all of the provinces would not have consented." Provinces were not prepared to relinquish their section 92 constitutional authority over "Property and Civil Rights in the Province" or "Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province."

Last week's court ruling is a useful reminder of the benefits which taxpayers can reap from federalism. A federal state tries to assign various powers to the level of government most naturally suited for carrying out a particular task. For example, our federal Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over currency, defence, postal service, and inter-provincial trade. Provinces have jurisdiction over hospitals and schools.

A diverse country like Canada, where different social, cultural and economic conditions prevail in each province, is not well served by one-size-fits-all programs designed in Ottawa and run from there. Today's advanced communications technology is still no substitute for first-hand knowledge and experience of local circumstances. That's why politicians and bureaucrats at City Hall are in a better position to manage the fire department than politicians and bureaucrats in Ottawa or a provincial capital. Local problems are best addressed by the level of government which is closest to them.

Further, federalism creates a laboratory in which provinces can innovate new and better fiscal policies, health care, education and other government programs. For example, politicians in nine provinces and three territories are able to study Quebec's $7-per-day government daycare, and debate whether it's a model to be emulated or a disaster to be avoided. If a new policy proves to be a failure in one province, nine others can be spared the fate of making the same mistake. In the same way, success in one field can be envied, and then emulated, by other jurisdictions.

Last week's court ruling is a sober reminder of the limits of federal jurisdiction. In contrast, in this week's Throne Speech the federal government declared itself to be responsible for housing, transit, excellent schools, lifelong learning, skills upgrading, Canadians with disabilities, post-secondary education and training, protecting children's "health, happiness and freedom," "healthy early childhood development," and "helping" Canadian families with "supports and tools." Not one of these topics can be found - either expressly or by implication - in section 91 of Canada's Constitution, which enumerates federal powers. And some things - like usurping the responsibility of parents to nurture and raise their own children - should not be done by any level of government.

When the federal government intrudes on provincial jurisdiction, taxpayers are denied the benefit of having programs designed by, and run by, the level of government which is most attuned to local realities, needs and concerns. Taxpayers also lose the benefits which come from the innovation and experimentation that a federal state allows. Further, a federal government whose focus is divided among a large multitude of tasks will necessarily pay less attention to its core functions, like ensuring that trade between provinces is free.

Regardless of whether or not this decision is eventually upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, Paul Martin should re-read sections 91 and 92 of our Constitution. The federal government should focus on its responsibilities, and let the provinces get on with theirs.