It never ceases to amaze me that so many people profess surprise at Stephen Harper. This amuses me because, if nothing else, the man has shown himself to be remarkably consistent and predictable. Yet, while meeting in Victoria yesterday, now even provincial premiers are getting into the act of feigned outrage and shock, calling Harper’s unilateral health care funding decision “unacceptable.”
There are two things that were a surprise. The first is that these typically turf hungry and parochial provincialists (who, don’t forget, are meeting under the aegis of something called “The Council of the Federation”!) are suddenly expressing worry about the national interest. The second is their apparent refusal to take yes for an answer on something that they and their predecessors have been demanding for decades: that Ottawa stay out of their business and just keep the cheques coming. It takes two to tango, and for the longest time, cooperative federalism or however else you want to label it, was defined as Ottawa giving and the provinces taking. Period.
No one should be surprised at Mr. Harper’s health care funding move. His view of federalism has been crystal clear for at least twenty years and it has not changed in the past six. In power he has been consistent in implementing the approach that some have been calling “classical federalism”. To political scientists, that theoretically might very well be the correct term. However, that handle was never applicable to the Canadian experience. That is, until now.
There are perfectly legitimate and compelling cases to be made for differing “visions” of federalism; namely “centralization” versus “decentralization”. For some, the mantra is “respect the constitution and the division of powers.” For others it is the necessity of a “strong central government to safeguard the national interest.”
Both visions have merit and both have weaknesses. However, this is a tired and largely irrelevant debate that ignores the more fundamental question: what makes sense in the 21st Century?
The Fathers of Confederation designed a constitution where the federal government was the lead government. Our first Prime Minister, Conservative Sir John A. Macdonald, believed that a strong and dominant national government was vital to developing a sense of shared nationhood. Provincialists like Ontario Premier Oliver Mowat – a Liberal – began to challenge the power and authority of the national government. In those days, the Supreme Court of Canada did not exist, so Canadians had to plead their case in London before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In decisions that were most regrettable to patriots like Macdonald, important sections of the BNA Act were diluted.
In a country of our size and regional diversity, robust provincial governments are as essential as they are desirable. They are better equipped to deliver programs that are more acclimatized to local experience and should be more adroit at changing as circumstances warrant. Ottawa is hopelessly inept at doing that. At the same time, our country can only become a nation when there is a strong sense of shared purpose and belonging to Canada and equality of opportunity and services across the country. That is the role of the federal government.
For six years now, in vital matters ranging from the environment and energy to all matter of social policy, Mr. Harper has vacated national leadership where it is needed the most. While his approach is based on a view of Canada that is diametrically opposed to mine, that doesn’t mean he arrived at his opinion with any less sincerity than I arrived at mine.
What is different in our perspectives is that I believe our economic and social union is profoundly inefficient, and our national government must take the lead in correcting that. Our standard of living and capacity to provide citizens with a comprehensive social safety net requires a smooth functioning economic space where the rules of the road are clear, sensible and offer the security of certainty. Ottawa must drive that agenda.
On the social union, the constitution sets out the principle of equal access to essential services of comparable quality. In too many parts of the country today, the reality is anything but. And that is the heart of the matter in the health care discussion. And on that critical piece of nationhood, Mr. Harper has decided that Ottawa will be a bystander. Or in parlance that Conservatives will identify with, a passive investor.
Being passive about Ottawa’s fundamental role has far-reaching implications for the Canada we know.
Canada’s unity – especially given potent countervailing global forces and stresses – needs unceasing nurturing and attentiveness. For at least the past two decades, by intention and inattention, Ottawa, with the eager complicity of provinces ever more hungry for power, have abandoned or underutilized many of the levers a national government needs to promote and defend the national interest. They are being slowly chipped away, with Mr. Harper’s health care funding decision simply being the latest example.
To be clear, the moves to decentralization and so-called asymmetrical federalism began under Lester Pearson, not Stephen Harper. Those were in response to Quebec Premier Jean Lesage and his “Quiet Revolution”, and have continued under every prime minister since.
What appears different in Mr. Harper’s health care funding decision is that he is not even trying to pretend that Ottawa will expect anything in return from the provinces. There is at least intellectual honesty in that. How many times have previous governments announced to great fanfare that it had negotiated “national standards” in health care, for example, only to ignore clear violations of those agreements?
Strengthening the spinal cord of the nation requires leaders – in Ottawa and the provinces – that believe this is important. The consequence of ignoring the real power of a cohesive national action on various fronts is a more fragmented and dispersed federation than ever before. One need look no further than the skirmishes and cleavages on everything from energy and climate change policy to health care, securities regulation and immigration, just to name a few.
It also costs real money and real jobs. Imagine for a moment how potent we could become if we spoke with one voice and drove a concerted and coherent policy and regulatory agenda in the overall national interest? Instead of harnessing that untapped potential and enormous power, provinces have fought to preserve what’s in their shrinking sandbox. And today, they have a prime minister in Ottawa that is more than happy to let them do that.
There are many active proponents of a closer economic union with the United States. What they do not address is the weakness of the Canadian economic space. Our national leaders should put Canadian economic integration on the public agenda. There are significant benefits from enhanced economic integration that circle right back to a strong national social and environmental policy framework.
For that to occur, however, all levels of government, particularly the provinces, must sacrifice some degree of political autonomy. The key to economic integration within Canada is the mobility of goods, services, labour, capital, and technology. The greater the economic integration, the greater the pressure to coordinate and harmonize many policy instruments and to add legal, social, and environmental codes to the common arrangements.
By its very nature, federalism can enhance Canada’s ability to manage a complex economy in an increasingly interdependent global economy. It can provide an effective way of securing the benefits of economic integration while responding to local needs and aspirations.
Our social and economic union is weak. Productivity and innovation, the seminal economic issues of our times, face massive structural impediments. Trade and labour mobility between provinces are far from free. Jurisdictional overlap is cumbersome and an impediment to investment and efficient government. Our system of equalization is outmoded. The current formula rewards provinces that waste money and penalizes the fiscally responsible. That makes our country less equal. It fuels regional animosity and does not foster unity.
Stephen Harper has done the country a great favour if it means that premiers now have a genuine newfound concern for the interest of Canada as a whole, and not just their backyard. That would come not a moment too soon.
If they are serious, let premiers make tangible proposals on how they might break down barriers to a stronger social and economic union. Doing that would help create a true nation – not a confederation of shopping centers – for the 21st Century. It would also usher in a new era of prosperity and social justice for Canada. In a globalized economy, it is far from a cliché to suggest that Canada is more formidable that the sum of its parts. It is an undisputed economic, social and political reality.
Original Article
Source: iPolitico
There are two things that were a surprise. The first is that these typically turf hungry and parochial provincialists (who, don’t forget, are meeting under the aegis of something called “The Council of the Federation”!) are suddenly expressing worry about the national interest. The second is their apparent refusal to take yes for an answer on something that they and their predecessors have been demanding for decades: that Ottawa stay out of their business and just keep the cheques coming. It takes two to tango, and for the longest time, cooperative federalism or however else you want to label it, was defined as Ottawa giving and the provinces taking. Period.
No one should be surprised at Mr. Harper’s health care funding move. His view of federalism has been crystal clear for at least twenty years and it has not changed in the past six. In power he has been consistent in implementing the approach that some have been calling “classical federalism”. To political scientists, that theoretically might very well be the correct term. However, that handle was never applicable to the Canadian experience. That is, until now.
There are perfectly legitimate and compelling cases to be made for differing “visions” of federalism; namely “centralization” versus “decentralization”. For some, the mantra is “respect the constitution and the division of powers.” For others it is the necessity of a “strong central government to safeguard the national interest.”
Both visions have merit and both have weaknesses. However, this is a tired and largely irrelevant debate that ignores the more fundamental question: what makes sense in the 21st Century?
The Fathers of Confederation designed a constitution where the federal government was the lead government. Our first Prime Minister, Conservative Sir John A. Macdonald, believed that a strong and dominant national government was vital to developing a sense of shared nationhood. Provincialists like Ontario Premier Oliver Mowat – a Liberal – began to challenge the power and authority of the national government. In those days, the Supreme Court of Canada did not exist, so Canadians had to plead their case in London before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In decisions that were most regrettable to patriots like Macdonald, important sections of the BNA Act were diluted.
In a country of our size and regional diversity, robust provincial governments are as essential as they are desirable. They are better equipped to deliver programs that are more acclimatized to local experience and should be more adroit at changing as circumstances warrant. Ottawa is hopelessly inept at doing that. At the same time, our country can only become a nation when there is a strong sense of shared purpose and belonging to Canada and equality of opportunity and services across the country. That is the role of the federal government.
For six years now, in vital matters ranging from the environment and energy to all matter of social policy, Mr. Harper has vacated national leadership where it is needed the most. While his approach is based on a view of Canada that is diametrically opposed to mine, that doesn’t mean he arrived at his opinion with any less sincerity than I arrived at mine.
What is different in our perspectives is that I believe our economic and social union is profoundly inefficient, and our national government must take the lead in correcting that. Our standard of living and capacity to provide citizens with a comprehensive social safety net requires a smooth functioning economic space where the rules of the road are clear, sensible and offer the security of certainty. Ottawa must drive that agenda.
On the social union, the constitution sets out the principle of equal access to essential services of comparable quality. In too many parts of the country today, the reality is anything but. And that is the heart of the matter in the health care discussion. And on that critical piece of nationhood, Mr. Harper has decided that Ottawa will be a bystander. Or in parlance that Conservatives will identify with, a passive investor.
Being passive about Ottawa’s fundamental role has far-reaching implications for the Canada we know.
Canada’s unity – especially given potent countervailing global forces and stresses – needs unceasing nurturing and attentiveness. For at least the past two decades, by intention and inattention, Ottawa, with the eager complicity of provinces ever more hungry for power, have abandoned or underutilized many of the levers a national government needs to promote and defend the national interest. They are being slowly chipped away, with Mr. Harper’s health care funding decision simply being the latest example.
To be clear, the moves to decentralization and so-called asymmetrical federalism began under Lester Pearson, not Stephen Harper. Those were in response to Quebec Premier Jean Lesage and his “Quiet Revolution”, and have continued under every prime minister since.
What appears different in Mr. Harper’s health care funding decision is that he is not even trying to pretend that Ottawa will expect anything in return from the provinces. There is at least intellectual honesty in that. How many times have previous governments announced to great fanfare that it had negotiated “national standards” in health care, for example, only to ignore clear violations of those agreements?
Strengthening the spinal cord of the nation requires leaders – in Ottawa and the provinces – that believe this is important. The consequence of ignoring the real power of a cohesive national action on various fronts is a more fragmented and dispersed federation than ever before. One need look no further than the skirmishes and cleavages on everything from energy and climate change policy to health care, securities regulation and immigration, just to name a few.
It also costs real money and real jobs. Imagine for a moment how potent we could become if we spoke with one voice and drove a concerted and coherent policy and regulatory agenda in the overall national interest? Instead of harnessing that untapped potential and enormous power, provinces have fought to preserve what’s in their shrinking sandbox. And today, they have a prime minister in Ottawa that is more than happy to let them do that.
There are many active proponents of a closer economic union with the United States. What they do not address is the weakness of the Canadian economic space. Our national leaders should put Canadian economic integration on the public agenda. There are significant benefits from enhanced economic integration that circle right back to a strong national social and environmental policy framework.
For that to occur, however, all levels of government, particularly the provinces, must sacrifice some degree of political autonomy. The key to economic integration within Canada is the mobility of goods, services, labour, capital, and technology. The greater the economic integration, the greater the pressure to coordinate and harmonize many policy instruments and to add legal, social, and environmental codes to the common arrangements.
By its very nature, federalism can enhance Canada’s ability to manage a complex economy in an increasingly interdependent global economy. It can provide an effective way of securing the benefits of economic integration while responding to local needs and aspirations.
Our social and economic union is weak. Productivity and innovation, the seminal economic issues of our times, face massive structural impediments. Trade and labour mobility between provinces are far from free. Jurisdictional overlap is cumbersome and an impediment to investment and efficient government. Our system of equalization is outmoded. The current formula rewards provinces that waste money and penalizes the fiscally responsible. That makes our country less equal. It fuels regional animosity and does not foster unity.
Stephen Harper has done the country a great favour if it means that premiers now have a genuine newfound concern for the interest of Canada as a whole, and not just their backyard. That would come not a moment too soon.
If they are serious, let premiers make tangible proposals on how they might break down barriers to a stronger social and economic union. Doing that would help create a true nation – not a confederation of shopping centers – for the 21st Century. It would also usher in a new era of prosperity and social justice for Canada. In a globalized economy, it is far from a cliché to suggest that Canada is more formidable that the sum of its parts. It is an undisputed economic, social and political reality.
Original Article
Source: iPolitico
No comments:
Post a Comment