Premiers’ meeting was the usual chorus of begging
The premiers are out to report how successful their meeting went in Toronto on Monday – having produced a set of demands to which all agreed, supposedly in a spirit of rolling up their sleeves for the good of the country.
Not to pour water on all the excitement, but the common ground the group claims to have found isn’t novel or compelling. It’s perhaps a slight improvement over the normal chorus of begging, in that delegates have produced a communiqué which isn’t a tortured read, including – by my count – two actionable policy requests for the federal government. But the theme remains the same: Ottawa should transfer more and consult more – despite the provinces’ continued disagreement on most of the big national questions. Were the feds to enter a serious negotiation with the Council of the Federation, for how many minutes would its “united front” last?
The most contentious policy matter facing the country is likely pipelines, on which the most ardent opponent of construction, Quebec, simply reiterated its position.
What the council did say together was that Parliament should amend Bill C-69 – the Trudeau government’s overhaul of the infrastructure approval process – but gave only one direct criticism of the bill and no detail of how its underlying principle should change.
On transfer payments, you’ll be shocked to learn the provinces want more generosity from Ottawa.
For Alberta and Saskatchewan – though conceivably for others if the need one day arises – the ask is for more lucrative funding to offset economic downturns.
And even more predictably, the provinces have once again called for increases to the Harper-instituted, and Trudeau-maintained, three per cent annual escalator for health-care funding.
And while some premiers said after the fact that an increase in health transfers should precede any pursuit of a national prescription drug plan, such a declaration did not make it into the communiqué.
The premiers’ letter is, in sum, basically worthless. If these gatherings are going to one day create any value, the first ministers should use their time to make headway on disagreements between the regions – not between them and Ottawa. On seemingly “zero sum” issues like equalization, the “have” and “have not” blocs will need to compromise, lest they continue to talk past each other. On pipelines, the provinces should, at a minimum, concede interprovincial infrastructure is not their domain and recognize the feds’ judgment about the national interest.
This, of course, assumes we owe even this much to the premiers. Having substantial and unique constitutional responsibilities – and in several provinces, looming public debt crises – ought to keep them busy enough, without veering into expressly federal territory.
Yet on account of the very transfers the premiers wish to grow, the lines between national and provincial jurisdiction have muddied, most of all on health care.
An alternative? Start with Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister and economist Brian Crowley’s proposal – first outlined in the Financial Post last December – for a “grand bargain” to transfer tax points for health funding, instead of annual cash subsidies.
Such a policy change would remove much ambiguity on jurisdiction. But it would also free the provinces from the ball and chain of promised, though suspendable, transfer dollars – a significant roadblock to local policy reform and experimentation. If there is a better way to deliver health care than no-exception-single-payer, and its resulting breadlines and runaway liabilities, we’re never going to find out.
Unless, that is, the premiers shift their focus from escalating transfers – on health care, and on any other ground where their interests align – to a proposal for reasserting provincial authority where it exists and financing it on a local basis.
That would be a more productive use of their time, and ours, than the tired, biannual routine of pleading for more dough.