By rarely meeting with the provinces, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is
accelerating a trend started by former Liberal prime minister Jean
Chrétien in the 1990s of having less consultation between the two levels
of government, says former Saskatchewan deputy minister and University
of Regina professor Greg Marchildon, one of six authors of the
recently-released book, Governance And Public Policy In Canada: A View From The Provinces, published by the University of Toronto Press. “This is not new, Jean Chrétien limited the number of first ministers’ meetings, although not on the scale of Stephen Harper. Before Jean Chrétien, there were many more meetings, and during the Trudeau period, there were many, many, meetings, partly because of the Constitution,” said Prof. Marchildon.
“But it’s also very clear that Stephen Harper and his government have more of a water-tight compartment view of the Constitution, and feels that it’s up to the provinces to make their decisions acting alone or together, but without the federal government being at the table,” he explained in an interview with The Hill Times.
Oft overlooked by policy wonks, who tend to focus on the federal government, provinces are getting their day in the sun with Governance and Public Policy in Canada: A View From the Provinces, co-authored by Prof. Marchildon and five other public policy and administration scholars, including Michael M. Atkinson, Daniel Béland, Kathleen McNutt, Peter W.B. Phillips, and Ken Rasmussen.
The book is the first in a planned series that will tackle important policy issues facing the provinces, said Prof. Marchildon. Future books will be on health care, social assistance, and other topics.
Provinces are facing a growing gap between their ambitions and their abilities when it comes to policy-making and agenda-setting, note the authors.
“It’s not so much the capacity to administer by the capacity to plan, to develop new directions. It’s a combination of leadership and real policy planning skills. This is an area that the federal government has been stronger, historically, than the provinces on, and the provinces have some catch-up,” said Prof. Marchildon.
You and the other authors write in the introduction, “as major sites of policy change, provinces have been largely understudied.” Why is that?
“There has historically been a tremendous amount of focus on the federal government, and in part that is because it is the so-called national government, and it’s natural for political scientists and other scholars to focus on what they consider to be the central locus of power and authority in the country, which is in most cases the central government.
“I think the difference in Canada is two-fold: No. 1, it is by design a more decentralized federation, but more importantly it has become a very highly-decentralized federation in the last three decades. This is supported by a fair amount of evidence that crosses from the degree of fiscal decentralization to political and constitutional decentralization. As a consequence of that, the scholarship, I don’t think has quite kept pace with these developments, and we’re beginning to fill that gap.
“There are other scholars that are now increasingly focused on the provincial levels of government.”
The book notes that federalism tends to become more decentralized in countries like Canada with a distinct minority language group. Is this a major factor in Canada’s decentralization, or are there others?
“That’s certainly one of the key factors, but in addition to that, you have in the Canadian case, the move to greater indigenous self-government. That has acted in a way to decentralize, and in a way that actually reduces provincial power and authority at times. That’s not the case in a lot of OECD federations.”
Stephen Harper has been criticized for not having many meetings between the two levels of government. How has intergovernmental dialogue worked under this federal government?
“There’s two ways to look at it. One is it’s simply a reflection of a longer-term trend to the provinces making more and more decisions in the policy field without the federal government providing direction or participating. There’s another way to look at it, which is, in fact, that the Harper government is accelerating that trend by making a policy decision to avoid such meetings.
“This is not new, Jean Chrétien limited the number of first ministers’ meetings, although not on the scale of Stephen Harper. Before Jean Chrétien, there were many more meetings, and during the Trudeau period, there were many, many, meetings, partly because of the Constitution. But it’s also very clear that Stephen Harper and his government have more of a water-tight compartment view of the Constitution, and feels that it’s up to the provinces to make their decisions acting alone or together, but without the federal government being at the table.
“It has made that decision in numerous policy areas. It’s not completely consistent, because for example, the federal government has decided to play more of a role in the area of immigration in the last couple of years than it has before that. But it’s still done so in a way that doesn’t involve federal-provincial collaboration as much as federal unilateral decision-making, to occupy more space.”
Speaking of unilateral decision-making, one of the instances that stand out in peoples’ minds is the decision on the Canada Health Transfer. Are we seeing provinces change their approach to health care as a result of the federal decision on the Canada Health Transfer to slow transfers?
“Those are two questions embedded in one. Let me start with the first one: are the provinces reacting to the federal government’s non-involvement on the issue? I would say that, to some extent, they are, and they are doing so through the Council of the Federation. Whether that will produce anything that will be very significant, time will tell.
“The second issue: what have they done in response to the slowing of the rate of growth on the Canada Health Transfer? I have not seen any changes yet in response to that, partly because it has yet to kick in.”
You and your co-authors write that the provinces face a gap between their responsibilities and ambitions compared to their capacity. Does the federal government need to step up transfers so that this can be addressed?
“The capacity we were talking about is as much and probably more of a human resource and policy sophistication capacity than it is a fiscal capacity. Compared to many federations, the Canadian provinces are actually much more self-sufficient fiscally, and have a greater control over fiscal powers, than what you see some states and other OECD federations. They’re less dependent on federal transfers than most, and that tells me, in fact, that they have much more room and latitude than what is commonly believed. But they have not yet fully developed the policy and I would call it the diplomatic skills, if you’re talking about the inter-provincial element of it, to fully live up to their ambitions. That will take time.”
“It’s not so much the capacity to administer by the capacity to plan, to develop new directions. It’s a combination of leadership and real policy planning skills. This is an area that the federal government has been stronger historically than the provinces on, and the provinces have some catch-up.”
Provincial tax powers are also limited by Confederation to direct taxes on individuals, while the federal government has much wider taxation powers. You write that while this made sense back then, “it makes no sense today.” Why is that?
“The province’s responsibilities are much larger, in effect, even though it’s the same Constitution for the most part on the division of powers. That is because government is so much more involved in social policy areas that weren’t even considered at the time of Confederation.
“You think about health care, or you think about social assistance or social welfare policies, or you think about education in the sense of not just basic education of kindergarten to grade 12 but also post-secondary education. These are all very expensive responsibilities, and the provincial governments’ need has broadened taxation powers as much as possible to be able to fund these extremely expensive responsibilities. Probably there needs to be a review of the basic taxation fields.
“Some of it is less the formal division of powers on taxation than the informal ability of the federal government to take up tax base in an area the both governments have the right to take up. A good example is the area of what we call goods and services tax. In that area, the federal government through the imposition of the goods and services tax took up a lot of the room, and it’s very difficult for provincial governments to increase their sales tax in that area.
“Another area is on payroll taxation, and through the Canada Pension Plan, there’s very little room for provinces to move in terms of additional payroll taxation because of the fear that this would be a job-killing tax if it went up much further.
“It’s in that area that it’s really critical, and it will have to be reassessed over time. There have been suggestions, for example, that the federal government cede the goods and services tax to the provinces, or that the federal government give up tax points in that area.
“That could be combined with instead of adding money into a transfer, that a tax-point transfer be considered instead of a cash transfer. Those sorts of debates.”
To quote the book: “Provincial policies, after all, emerge from within a complex relationship that includes the federal government, the governments of other provinces, and other actors that are growing in importance, such as emerging aboriginal self-governments, local governments and members of civil society.” In regards to aboriginal governments, which have become more vocal in the past couple of years, how are we seeing the relationships between these players change?
“You have to go province by province, but, yes, there have been some major shifts. If you look at the Yukon and British Columbia, and the new treaties that have been negotiated and concluded, that has made a difference. It’s also set a precedent about how you can deal, and how governments in the future may deal, with claims of self-government from aboriginal groups that are not subject to the old treaty systems.
“In the areas where the old treaty system exists, it’s also true that it has been very difficult for the federal government to act alone, that the provinces have had to be involved in treaty land entitlement. These had to ultimately involve provincial lands and the transfer of provincial lands, so that it becomes tri-partite negotiations between First Nations, the federal government and the provincial government.
“There have been changes, but there also a growing gap between the expectations of First Nations, Métis, Inuit, and what is happening on the ground in terms of finding a compromise of a solution in response to the claims of self-government. That is why we have the reaction that we have in the aboriginal community. Because the expectations are growing but the movement on the ground is very slow.
“Historically, provinces have said, ‘This is not our concern, because First Nations and etcetera are under the responsibility of the federal government. It’s their fiduciary responsibility and obligation.’ But the truth of the matter is, this will impinge on provincial governments no matter how you cut it, and there will have to be an engagement of the provincial government, and whatever happens, the provinces will go through a decentralization of some kind, as a consequence of First Nations and other aboriginal claims.”
What do you most want readers to take away from your book?
“First of all, to see this, in terms of tensions that exist within our current federation, it’s a set of constructive tensions that are going to produce some pretty interesting experiments. One of them is that while there is significant policy convergence in certain provinces, there is also some very interesting divergences, and those provide the kind of natural laboratory to study the impacts of different policies. To look for that.
“The next is the tension between centralization and decentralization, and that the further that you go in a decentralized direction, the more you have to work at collaborative federalism to address the issues and the challenges that arise through that increasing decentralization.
“The next is the tension between ambition and capacity. There is a gap, and how provincial governments fill that gap is going to be a very interesting area to look at over the next five years.
“Then finally, there’s a host of issues and challenges that arise because of the evolution of the country and the growing importance of provincial governments. To understand what those issues and challenges are so that we can better-address them.”
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: JESSICA BRUNO
No comments:
Post a Comment