By closing the Health Council of Canada, Stephen Harper is abandoning national medicare

Health Ministers from across Canada were recently told by the Harper government that it will stop funding the Health Council of Canada and wants it “wound down” in order to save $6 million.

When the Harper government says it is time to wind down the Health Council of Canada, it is saying in effect, it is time to wind down national medicare. Let me explain.

Harper cut to Health Council could signal end of National healthcare

(OTTAWA) – The Canadian Health Coalition issued an urgent alert to Canadians in light of today’s news that the Harper Government is terminating its funding of the Health Council of Canada.

“This announcement signals Harper’s intention to withdraw essential federal leadership from health care. Medicare will not survive the withdrawal of the guardian of national standards and universal access to care for all Canadians regardless of where they live. This could mean the end of Canada’s last and most loved social program,” said Michael McBane, National Coordinator of the Canadian Health Coalition.

Federalism upside down: Who speaks for Canada now?

Something strange is going on. It is as though a ventriloquist had taken control of our federal and provincial leaders and was making them speak with each other’s voices.

While the federal government defends classical federalism, the provinces rise to argue for pan-Canadianism. Veterans of the constitutional wars must be shaking their heads in disbelief.

However, while this role-reversal may be disorienting, it is not just a muddle. The premiers are quite literally re-inventing the federation — and, in our view, not a moment too soon. To see why, let us start by providing some context.

With Ontario lagging, will the West be prepared to sacrifice?

One question will define national politics in our time: Are Western Canadians prepared to sacrifice for the sake of the nation, now that Ontario is less able to help?

Population data from the 2011 census, released Tuesday morning, reveals a confident, growing Canada. One that is well-equipped to grapple with the demographic challenges facing all developed nations.

But while Western Canada leaps ahead, thanks to robust immigration and burgeoning resource revenues, the rest of the country lags. Quebec and Atlantic Canada are now fewer in number than British Columbia and the Prairie provinces.

And Ontario, home to almost four in 10 Canadians, has dropped below the national average in growth, another grim tiding for Canada’s industrial heartland.

The Canadian social contract is under serious stress. Since the Great Depression, Ontario taxpayers have funded national programs that benefited poorer provinces. Ontario premiers from George Drew to Bill Davis knew that national unity depended on Ontario sharing its bounty. They grumbled sometimes, but they paid.

Canada’s wealth-sharing plan is unconstitutional, study says

Canada’s national wealth-sharing scheme violates the Constitution with a half-baked equalization formula that shortchanges provinces like Ontario, a major new study has found.

In a 41-page paper to be released Monday by the Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation at the University of Toronto, equalization expert Peter Gusen said the status quo is unconstitutional.

And that costs Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick billions of dollars annually that go instead to Quebec, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island.

“If equalization continues to ignore differences in expenditure need it will not be treating provinces fairly and it will not be fulfilling its constitutional mandate,” writes Gusen.

When dispensing equalization payouts from the taxpayer-funded $15.4 billion pool, Ottawa doesn’t take into account that wages and cost-of-living expenses are higher in Ontario and B.C. than in much of the country.

“Provinces … differ in their ability ‘to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services’ because they have to spend different amounts to offer similar services; in other words, because they have different expenditure needs,” he writes, quoting Section 36.2 of the Constitution Act.

The slow, steady dismantling of Canadian federalism

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.

A Flawed Approach to Federalism

The crime bill and other policies of the Harper government suggest a turn away from his commitment to decentralization.

After taking office in 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared his commitment to the principle of “open federalism.” Acknowledging that, “Canadians want their governments to work for them,” the prime minister said his government would respect areas of provincial jurisdiction, while also taking advantage of the “experience and expertise that the provinces and territories can contribute to the national dialogue.” If the recent words from Quebec and Ontario premiers on the crime bill are any sign, it seems that open federalism may not be at work.

The idea of open federalism is nothing to shrug at. Politically, for the prime minister, it builds on his Reform Party roots – a party known for its criticisms of federal interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction. By scaling back federal interventions, open federalism also offers a chance to smooth out relations among the federal, provincial, and territorial governments. Finally, open federalism offers Canada the chance to systematically capitalize on one of our primary assets: the talent and leadership of elected and appointed officials from the provinces and territories.