Stephen Harper's fiendish strategy
The Council of the Federation, as the premiers have taken to styling themselves, was born on Dec. 5, 2003. On that date, according to the council's Web site, the premiers "proudly announced in Charlottetown" -- in Charlottetown, no less -- the creation of "a new institution for a new era in collaborative intergovernmental relations."
It was more than just a grandiloquent title for a bunch of second-tier pols with their hands out, you understand. It was to be the vehicle for a great reshaping of the federation. As always, Quebec was the driving force; the other premiers were just along for the ride. The province's Liberal government enunciated a philosophy of federalism as, essentially, interprovincialism: Issues of overriding national concern would be addressed by agreements among the provinces -- and not by, I don't know, some cockamamie scheme like a national government.
As the premiers -- sorry, the Council -- explains, the C of the F "was created by Premiers because they believe it is important for provinces and territories to play a leadership role in revitalizing the Canadian federation." A leadership role, mind. Since that auspicious day -- soon to be an interprovincial holiday -- the premiers have gone from triumph to triumph, culminating in this week's historic interprovincial accord, the Agreement to Disagree. That's how it was described by Newfoundland's Danny Williams: "We've agreed to disagree." Mind you, not everyone, um, agreed.
"There's no such thing as any kind of a loss to be drawn from the fact that Canada's representatives have come together and have engaged each other in earnest dialogue," said Ontario's Dalton McGuinty. "If nothing else, we developed a better understanding of each other's concerns."
And indeed they have, through several previous comings-together. After all, when you're grappling with the kinds of momentous national issues a Council of the Federation is proudly announced in Charlottetown to play a leadership role in, it's to be expected there will be the odd bit of better understanding along the way. ("Mommy and Daddy aren't fighting. We're engaging each other in earnest dialogue.")
And some issues raise such important questions of principle as not to lend themselves to ready agreement: For example, whether to take billions of dollars in federal money in tens or twenties. OK, now I'm being flippant. What I meant to say was, whether the billions of dollars in federal lolly, intended to address the "fiscal imbalance" (send your definitions to: Free Money, c/o this newspaper), should be directed through the federal equalization program or through the federal health and social transfer. It all goes into general revenues either way, but one program would disproportionately benefit some provinces (read: Quebec), while the other would disproportionately benefit some others (read: Ontario).
So intractable is this problem, and so great are the issues at stake, that the premiers could not even agree on the usual formula for resolving interprovincial squabbles over money: More / Everyone. As in, more for equalization and more for other transfers. Ontario rejected this solution earlier this year when it was recommended by the premiers' own task force (Reconciling the Irreconcilable was a rather cheeky title, I thought). And Quebec rejected this solution at this week's meeting when it was suggested by Ontario.
Now you might well ask, what are the premiers doing haggling over the design of a federal program, or rather two federal programs? Ralph Klein may believe that equalization involves transfers of money from the Alberta Treasury to his fellow First Ministers, but everyone else appears to understand that this is a federal program, paid for by federal taxpayers. So why are the premiers even talking about this? And why is the Prime Minister listening to them? Instead of giving the money to the provinces, why is he not simply cutting taxes from their present, perpetually surplus levels -- the only meaningful "fiscal imbalance" to afflict the country? The answer is: He is. Or rather, he isn't. (What was the question, again?)
If Paul Martin were still, I was going to say, "in charge," the premiers and he would be locked in a room somewhere even now, the PM having vowed not to leave until there was an agreement. Which agreement, the PM having signalled that he, or rather you, would pay whatever it took, would eventually be forged on the lines described above: gobs of cash for everyone. And the premiers would emerge to congratulate the PM for his leadership.
Stephen Harper's fiendish strategy has rather been to give the premiers the leadership role they seek. Go ahead and have your meeting, was his message. Call me when you reach an agreement. Fiendish? Diabolical, more like. Now he has a free hand to give them whatever he feels like giving them, which is to say not very much. Fiscal imbalance? Well, we're cutting taxes aren't we? The premiers can raise theirs if they like.
Mr. Martin spent months denying there was a fiscal imbalance, then gave the premiers the money anyway. Mr. Harper accepts there is a fiscal imbalance, and won't give them anything. RIP, Council of the Federation.
It was more than just a grandiloquent title for a bunch of second-tier pols with their hands out, you understand. It was to be the vehicle for a great reshaping of the federation. As always, Quebec was the driving force; the other premiers were just along for the ride. The province's Liberal government enunciated a philosophy of federalism as, essentially, interprovincialism: Issues of overriding national concern would be addressed by agreements among the provinces -- and not by, I don't know, some cockamamie scheme like a national government.
As the premiers -- sorry, the Council -- explains, the C of the F "was created by Premiers because they believe it is important for provinces and territories to play a leadership role in revitalizing the Canadian federation." A leadership role, mind. Since that auspicious day -- soon to be an interprovincial holiday -- the premiers have gone from triumph to triumph, culminating in this week's historic interprovincial accord, the Agreement to Disagree. That's how it was described by Newfoundland's Danny Williams: "We've agreed to disagree." Mind you, not everyone, um, agreed.
"There's no such thing as any kind of a loss to be drawn from the fact that Canada's representatives have come together and have engaged each other in earnest dialogue," said Ontario's Dalton McGuinty. "If nothing else, we developed a better understanding of each other's concerns."
And indeed they have, through several previous comings-together. After all, when you're grappling with the kinds of momentous national issues a Council of the Federation is proudly announced in Charlottetown to play a leadership role in, it's to be expected there will be the odd bit of better understanding along the way. ("Mommy and Daddy aren't fighting. We're engaging each other in earnest dialogue.")
And some issues raise such important questions of principle as not to lend themselves to ready agreement: For example, whether to take billions of dollars in federal money in tens or twenties. OK, now I'm being flippant. What I meant to say was, whether the billions of dollars in federal lolly, intended to address the "fiscal imbalance" (send your definitions to: Free Money, c/o this newspaper), should be directed through the federal equalization program or through the federal health and social transfer. It all goes into general revenues either way, but one program would disproportionately benefit some provinces (read: Quebec), while the other would disproportionately benefit some others (read: Ontario).
So intractable is this problem, and so great are the issues at stake, that the premiers could not even agree on the usual formula for resolving interprovincial squabbles over money: More / Everyone. As in, more for equalization and more for other transfers. Ontario rejected this solution earlier this year when it was recommended by the premiers' own task force (Reconciling the Irreconcilable was a rather cheeky title, I thought). And Quebec rejected this solution at this week's meeting when it was suggested by Ontario.
Now you might well ask, what are the premiers doing haggling over the design of a federal program, or rather two federal programs? Ralph Klein may believe that equalization involves transfers of money from the Alberta Treasury to his fellow First Ministers, but everyone else appears to understand that this is a federal program, paid for by federal taxpayers. So why are the premiers even talking about this? And why is the Prime Minister listening to them? Instead of giving the money to the provinces, why is he not simply cutting taxes from their present, perpetually surplus levels -- the only meaningful "fiscal imbalance" to afflict the country? The answer is: He is. Or rather, he isn't. (What was the question, again?)
If Paul Martin were still, I was going to say, "in charge," the premiers and he would be locked in a room somewhere even now, the PM having vowed not to leave until there was an agreement. Which agreement, the PM having signalled that he, or rather you, would pay whatever it took, would eventually be forged on the lines described above: gobs of cash for everyone. And the premiers would emerge to congratulate the PM for his leadership.
Stephen Harper's fiendish strategy has rather been to give the premiers the leadership role they seek. Go ahead and have your meeting, was his message. Call me when you reach an agreement. Fiendish? Diabolical, more like. Now he has a free hand to give them whatever he feels like giving them, which is to say not very much. Fiscal imbalance? Well, we're cutting taxes aren't we? The premiers can raise theirs if they like.
Mr. Martin spent months denying there was a fiscal imbalance, then gave the premiers the money anyway. Mr. Harper accepts there is a fiscal imbalance, and won't give them anything. RIP, Council of the Federation.
7/29/2006
