With a fiscal vice gripping all levels of government, 2012 is on track for testy confrontations and all-out feuds between federal and provincial cousins.
Finance ministers across the country are staring at varying levels of deficits, while bracing for new costs associated with Conservative tough-on-crime legislation. Add to that some bitter feelings about the new health care funding model announced by Jim Flaherty before Christmas.
All this breeds fertile ground for serious intergovernmental tug-of-wars, says Steve Patten, a political scientist at the University of Alberta.
“There’s an awful lot of potential for heightened conflict over the cost of federal initiatives, and the implications of the federal government’s decisions about the health transfer and also the social transfer,” he told iPolitics. “The impact it has on federal-provincial relations, as we’ve already seen, won’t be uniform across the country because there are some provinces that can afford the costs of the federal initiatives more easily than others, but there are also some provinces that have made political decisions to try and have better relations with the federal government. I think we’ve seen that in Alberta.”
Patten believes the Conservative government is orienting federal-provincial relations to strategically meet policy and financial accomplishments rather than pursuing a vision of how the relationship should work. The federal government acted “coy” on the health transfer file, then dropped a bombshell by spelling out the formula without consultation with the provinces and territories. In doing so, it effectively destabilized the premiers and territorial leaders so they would not be a united force against the federal government.
Division works to the Harper government’s advantage, Patten said.
“That was a classic federal move, but even more a classic Stephen Harper Conservative move, to try to get the provinces into a situation where it’s harder for them to work together,” he said. “The last thing they want is the provinces ganging up on them, being critical and therefore making it easy for the media and the general public to say, ‘Well, if all the provinces are against them there must be a real problem here.’”
Canada’s provinces are deeply split over the 10-year plan for health care that guarantees annual increases of six per cent until 2016-2017, then ties increases to growth in nominal gross domestic product. When Flaherty delivered the news last month, he caught his provincial and territorial partners off guard with the surprise announcement.
Western premiers expressed some gratitude for the long-term certainty, but others were bitterly angered by the lack of consultation. Flaherty bluntly said the plan is not open to negotiation.
Patten said this policy-driven approach to federal-provincial relations allows Harper to start with an “end game.”
But Thomas Klassen, political scientist at York University, believes Harper has adopted a “calm and cool” approach with the provinces to date, not caving in but not trying to take them on.
“There are battles to be fought, because that’s just how it is in Canada when you have two levels of government that are both quite powerful but often have to work together. When Harper came to power and ever since, he’s been quite clear that he wants to leave the battles and I think he has succeeded in that regard. There are of course still disagreements, but they don’t tend to escalate into premiers banding together and marching to Ottawa,” he said.
But Klassen predicts things could change as tensions flare with politicians wrestling with deficits, cuts and core programs. Battles are bound to erupt over both money and ideology.
To try to keep the peace, Harper must demonstrate he’s not putting all the pain on the backs of the provinces – that the pain is being felt at the federal level, too. But fingerpointing is almost inevitable in a time of substantial cutbacks.
“I see that we’re going to be heading towards a perfect storm, where just as the provinces are going to be asking for more, the federal government is going to be saying we have less,” Klassen said.
Quebec politicians are fuming over the government’s plan to shred all records related to the gun registry, threatening to refuse payment for costs associated with the Conservative crime legislation and frustrated by the health care funding formula handed down without warning. Klassen warned these clashes could lead to increased support for independence as Quebecers wonder if they are better in, or out, of the federation.
When it comes to health care funding, Peter Penashue, minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, defends both the federal formula and the process.
“Provinces asked for stability in funding and that is what our government has committed to providing through this new investment in health care that will see health care funding rise to record levels,” he said in an emailed reply to questions from iPolitics. “We have put the divisive issue of funding behind us and are moving forward with the most important issue — timely access to care.”
Penashue said the federal government is working to ensure smooth relations and won’t shortchange the provinces.
“Our government has always advocated and continues to stand up for open federalism. We maintain positive relationships with the provinces and we are committed to working with the provinces for the benefit of all Canadians,” he said. “Unlike previous Liberal governments, we will not balance the books on the backs of the provinces.”
But NDP MP and finance critic Peter Julian said the Conservatives are promising one thing and delivering another. He accused the government of being “irresponsible” by downloading extra criminal justice system and health care costs without consultation – acting like “bullies” by underfunding core services to fund their own pet projects.
“They have been very extremist in how they have approached these issues – very unyielding,” he said. “They’re wrecking federal-provincial relations in this country.”
Liberal MP and intergovernmental affairs critic Stephane Dion agrees the situation is “very worrying” as provinces prepare for lean times with a lack of co-operation from the feds. He accused the federal government of overspending for years in many areas, but not in the most critical program in the country: health care.
The recent lack of consultation on funding is part of a pattern of disrespect for the provinces and a lack of negotiations that has marked policy decisions ranging from Senate reform to shredding gun registry records – even though the provinces bear the brunt of those decisions, Dion said.
“I’ve never seen this kind of gesture that is so disrespectful of the views of their constitutional partners, the provinces. If you add up all these problems, of course the government is not respecting at all the spirit of our Constitution, the letter of the Constitution and the practice of our federation,” he said. “If the government doesn’t change its style, its approach, it will become more and more difficult to have optimal co-operation from Canadians, because at the end of the day it’s not only a matter of a relationship between governments in isolation – it’s a relationship between them and Canadians.”
Original Article
Source: iPolitico
Finance ministers across the country are staring at varying levels of deficits, while bracing for new costs associated with Conservative tough-on-crime legislation. Add to that some bitter feelings about the new health care funding model announced by Jim Flaherty before Christmas.
All this breeds fertile ground for serious intergovernmental tug-of-wars, says Steve Patten, a political scientist at the University of Alberta.
“There’s an awful lot of potential for heightened conflict over the cost of federal initiatives, and the implications of the federal government’s decisions about the health transfer and also the social transfer,” he told iPolitics. “The impact it has on federal-provincial relations, as we’ve already seen, won’t be uniform across the country because there are some provinces that can afford the costs of the federal initiatives more easily than others, but there are also some provinces that have made political decisions to try and have better relations with the federal government. I think we’ve seen that in Alberta.”
Patten believes the Conservative government is orienting federal-provincial relations to strategically meet policy and financial accomplishments rather than pursuing a vision of how the relationship should work. The federal government acted “coy” on the health transfer file, then dropped a bombshell by spelling out the formula without consultation with the provinces and territories. In doing so, it effectively destabilized the premiers and territorial leaders so they would not be a united force against the federal government.
Division works to the Harper government’s advantage, Patten said.
“That was a classic federal move, but even more a classic Stephen Harper Conservative move, to try to get the provinces into a situation where it’s harder for them to work together,” he said. “The last thing they want is the provinces ganging up on them, being critical and therefore making it easy for the media and the general public to say, ‘Well, if all the provinces are against them there must be a real problem here.’”
Canada’s provinces are deeply split over the 10-year plan for health care that guarantees annual increases of six per cent until 2016-2017, then ties increases to growth in nominal gross domestic product. When Flaherty delivered the news last month, he caught his provincial and territorial partners off guard with the surprise announcement.
Western premiers expressed some gratitude for the long-term certainty, but others were bitterly angered by the lack of consultation. Flaherty bluntly said the plan is not open to negotiation.
Patten said this policy-driven approach to federal-provincial relations allows Harper to start with an “end game.”
But Thomas Klassen, political scientist at York University, believes Harper has adopted a “calm and cool” approach with the provinces to date, not caving in but not trying to take them on.
“There are battles to be fought, because that’s just how it is in Canada when you have two levels of government that are both quite powerful but often have to work together. When Harper came to power and ever since, he’s been quite clear that he wants to leave the battles and I think he has succeeded in that regard. There are of course still disagreements, but they don’t tend to escalate into premiers banding together and marching to Ottawa,” he said.
But Klassen predicts things could change as tensions flare with politicians wrestling with deficits, cuts and core programs. Battles are bound to erupt over both money and ideology.
To try to keep the peace, Harper must demonstrate he’s not putting all the pain on the backs of the provinces – that the pain is being felt at the federal level, too. But fingerpointing is almost inevitable in a time of substantial cutbacks.
“I see that we’re going to be heading towards a perfect storm, where just as the provinces are going to be asking for more, the federal government is going to be saying we have less,” Klassen said.
Quebec politicians are fuming over the government’s plan to shred all records related to the gun registry, threatening to refuse payment for costs associated with the Conservative crime legislation and frustrated by the health care funding formula handed down without warning. Klassen warned these clashes could lead to increased support for independence as Quebecers wonder if they are better in, or out, of the federation.
When it comes to health care funding, Peter Penashue, minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, defends both the federal formula and the process.
“Provinces asked for stability in funding and that is what our government has committed to providing through this new investment in health care that will see health care funding rise to record levels,” he said in an emailed reply to questions from iPolitics. “We have put the divisive issue of funding behind us and are moving forward with the most important issue — timely access to care.”
Penashue said the federal government is working to ensure smooth relations and won’t shortchange the provinces.
“Our government has always advocated and continues to stand up for open federalism. We maintain positive relationships with the provinces and we are committed to working with the provinces for the benefit of all Canadians,” he said. “Unlike previous Liberal governments, we will not balance the books on the backs of the provinces.”
But NDP MP and finance critic Peter Julian said the Conservatives are promising one thing and delivering another. He accused the government of being “irresponsible” by downloading extra criminal justice system and health care costs without consultation – acting like “bullies” by underfunding core services to fund their own pet projects.
“They have been very extremist in how they have approached these issues – very unyielding,” he said. “They’re wrecking federal-provincial relations in this country.”
Liberal MP and intergovernmental affairs critic Stephane Dion agrees the situation is “very worrying” as provinces prepare for lean times with a lack of co-operation from the feds. He accused the federal government of overspending for years in many areas, but not in the most critical program in the country: health care.
The recent lack of consultation on funding is part of a pattern of disrespect for the provinces and a lack of negotiations that has marked policy decisions ranging from Senate reform to shredding gun registry records – even though the provinces bear the brunt of those decisions, Dion said.
“I’ve never seen this kind of gesture that is so disrespectful of the views of their constitutional partners, the provinces. If you add up all these problems, of course the government is not respecting at all the spirit of our Constitution, the letter of the Constitution and the practice of our federation,” he said. “If the government doesn’t change its style, its approach, it will become more and more difficult to have optimal co-operation from Canadians, because at the end of the day it’s not only a matter of a relationship between governments in isolation – it’s a relationship between them and Canadians.”
Original Article
Source: iPolitico
No comments:
Post a Comment