Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s view of classical federalism can be summed up simply: Good fences make for good neighbours. For example, last year, as Prime Minister Paul Martin’s health accord was reaching its term, everyone expected a round of tough intergovernmental negotiations.
Then, in December 2011, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty suddenly announced new 10-year funding levels for the provinces, with no strings attached.
While the government took some flak for not consulting, this quickly passed. Health, insisted Flaherty, is a provincial responsibility. Ottawa should provide a reasonable level of funding support, but the provinces should be free to use it as they see fit.
It was a clever move. If Ottawa doesn’t get to say how the provinces will use the money, why should the provinces get to say how much money the feds will put in the pot? Ultimately, it is up to Canadians to decide whether it’s enough, and that judgment will be made at the ballot box.
Job training is another example of Harper’s classical federalism. As we’ve heard in recent weeks, in 2009 the government signed a five-year skills agreement with the provinces that transferred $500 million to them, no strings attached. (Another $2 billion comes through a separate series of bilateral agreements.)
As these examples show, the Harper government has been willing to give classical federalism a real try—more than any government in the last half-century. To its credit, it has put its money where its mouth is. And while critics may see this brand of federalism as an abdication of federal leadership, it has kept federal-provincial relations quieter than they’ve been for decades. So why is the government changing its tune now?
Over the last month, stories have been leaking from the PMO that Harper is personally very frustrated by the provinces’ failure to connect training programs with the needs of employers.
In the wake of the budget, the reason for the leaks is clear. They were advance warning that the prime minister was not only fed up, he was preparing to take action. But we still need to ask, why? As a classical federalist, shouldn’t Harper have left this issue to the provinces? Why did he feel the need to get involved?
The clue is in the leaked messages. Even though job training belongs to the provinces, Harper has become convinced that it is too important to ignore. The provinces’ failure to make these programs work is affecting critical issues in his domain — such as the employment rate, economic growth and productivity—and that is a problem.
It’s as though the weeds in the neighbour’s yard are spreading through the fence and onto his well manicured lawn.
So, in this view, the leaks were not just a warning. They were an admission—perhaps even a declaration—that the prime minister’s personal views on policy and federalism are changing. He no longer believes good fences are enough and that, as prime minister, it’s his responsibility to act.
This is not unusual. Every prime minister for the last half century has struggled with this kind of interdependence. Whether it is job training, natural resources, infrastructure, health, education or transportation, federal and provincial policy issues inevitably become entangled.
However, as the strongest classical federalist in 50 years, such a shift in Harper’s thinking should be big news. It is a watershed moment that likely signals the beginning of the end for classical federalism. If so, the question now is how he plans to deal with interdependence—which brings us back to the budget.
If being prime minister has changed Harper’s views on policy and federalism, so far there is no evidence that it has changed his approach to politics, which, notoriously, is to work from a position of control.
Thus Flaherty’s budget unilaterally declares a three-way ‘partnership’ in which the federal government, provinces and private sector will share the costs of the new Job Grants Program.
The abrupt change in intergovernmental style here calls out for explanation. This is not just an adjustment to the government’s classical approach. It is a 180-degree turn. Unlike the health deal, where Flaherty offered the provinces new money and let them decide how to use it, now the provinces are being told to pay for a program they had no say in creating and likely don’t even want.
Nor, apparently, is there any room for debate. When Quebec declared it would have no part in the new program, the Harper government’s response was quick and decisive. Human Resources Minister Diane Finley appeared on CBC’s The House and announced that if Quebec refused to participate, funds would not flow to the province.
The message is clear: in this new brand of federalism, Ottawa decides, and the provinces are free to take it or leave it.
Those of us who’ve been around awhile may have a sense of déjà vu. We have seen this movie before. It is worryingly reminiscent of Pierre Trudeau’s “strong federal leadership,” which meant that Ottawa felt free to make unilateral decisions, and then use its power and fiscal resources to try to impose them on the provinces.
In hindsight, this kind of federalism was not only profoundly divisive, but largely ineffective at managing policy interdependence. The primary lesson from those years is that unilateralism doesn’t work.
So if the Harper government now feels it needs to play a more engaged role in the intergovernmental arena—as I think it should—first, it should step back and seriously consider what kind of approach is most likely to get the right outcomes. In the end, there are really only two choices: control or collaboration.
Perhaps ironically, the most eloquent defense of collaboration last week came from Justin Trudeau, who warned of the tensions unilateralism creates and called on the Harper government to “figure out (how) to work with the provinces to the benefit of all Canadians.” Surprising, perhaps, but also promising: the son, it seems, is not to be confused with the father.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics.ca
Author: Don Lenihan
No comments:
Post a Comment