It has been three years since what was once a staple of the political calendar, the annual meeting of summer prime ministers, was held in person.
As the Federation Council meets again, Canada’s prime ministers are packing up a lot of known baggage, especially with regard to their demands on the federal government.
After meeting frequently, sometimes weekly or fortnightly in the early days of the pandemic, prime ministers now feel “ghosts” for Ottawa, British Columbia Prime Minister John Horgan said over the weekend and hosted this year’s meeting, on CBC Radio’s The House.
It is unclear what could be delivered by Tuesday night, as only one side of the federal-provincial table is meeting in Victoria. However, here is what the prime ministers think.
Health care
It was already the biggest spending of prime ministers ’budgets and one of the top priorities of voters often cited. COVID-19 then put unprecedented strain on the health infrastructure that advocates warned was not up to par even before the pandemic.
“When you look at our healthcare system compared to other comparable countries, it has been deteriorating in terms of the quality of care and the timeliness of care over a long period of time,” said the president of the ‘Canadian Medical Association, Katharine Smart, on CBC’s The Current. last week. “This is not just about dollars. It’s about not modernizing the system.”
MIRAR | The needs of Canadians go beyond the health care system, says the CMA president
The needs of Canadians outweigh the health care system, says the CMA president
In many ways, Canada’s health care system has not been modernized since the 1960s, says the president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Katharine Smart. She urges Canada’s prime ministers to address these “structural issues” at their annual meeting in Victoria this week.
Still, it’s the dollars the prime ministers were talking about before they traveled to Victoria. They reminded Canadians, once again, that the federal proportion of health spending (22 per cent, they calculate) is not very close to where it was (35 per cent) or should be (as much as 50 per cent that is). once it was, as Jason Kenney of Alberta and Heather Stefanson of Manitoba have told us).
So they are asking Ottawa, once again, to sit down and negotiate larger payments for Canada’s health transfer.
MIRAR | More funding for health care is a key demand for provincial prime ministers:
Health care on the agenda for the next top-level talks
Canada’s prime ministers will meet for the first time in person this week since 2019. Healthcare is expected to be a top item on the agenda, with hospitals in parts of the country struggling with a severe staff shortage. .
It’s not that Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government disagrees that more funding is needed for health care, even though officials disagree with the 22 percent calculation, arguing that prime ministers ’maths ignore it. their income from federal tax points transferred to the provinces since 1997.
While both sides are calling for a “more adult conversation” about health care funding rather than a “sterile” debate over percentages that now looks like a stalemate, the prime ministers ’request last fall of an urgent meeting of prime ministers on health care was rejected. .
Because? The provincial elections in Ontario (this spring) and soon, Quebec (this fall) were apparently a difficult political moment in Ottawa’s eyes, despite last winter’s supply and confidence agreement with the federal NDP. presumably it has given more space to Trudeau’s liberals to solve something. without fear of a period of writing of its own.
As president, Horgan (a new Democrat) along with Newfoundland and Labrador Prime Minister Andrew Furey (a Liberal) and Saskatchewan Prime Minister Scott Moe (representing the most conservative prime ministers) have tried to implicate Trudeau. in a non-partisan way. But it didn’t work.
“As the kids say, the federal government has ghosted us,” Horgan said. “I know the prime minister is committed to that, but it’s a matter of time and the ticking is going clockwise, as far as I’m concerned.”
Federal Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos announced $ 2 billion to help with surgical delays last March. But last spring’s federal budget did not have a major, permanent, nonspecific boost to health transfers on its short-term horizon.
In March, federal Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos, on the right, announced $ 2 billion to help provinces deal with surgical delays. (Patrick Doyle / The Canadian Press)
In defense of Ottawa, some provinces have aroused skepticism that additional federal health transfers would be used for the intended purposes. Last month, the auditor general of Alberta found that he could not properly explain how billions were spent on COVID funding. The Ontario Office of Financial Responsibility reported last fall that the Doug Ford government did not immediately spend billions transferred on COVID’s urgent needs. New Brunswick used federal transfers from COVID to cover its provincial surplus.
Horgan seems to understand that repeating another request for unconditional transfers would be a non-title.
“This isn’t about blank checks, it’s not about unrestricted checks,” he told The House. “We need to work on what those accountability mechanisms will be.”
Beyond funding, it’s unclear if there are any other types of health innovations on Victoria’s agenda.
Smart, for example, has advocated for the granting of national, non-provincial, licenses to health professionals to improve interprovincial mobility for a labor force in desperate demand and to facilitate the escalation of health care delivery. virtual across jurisdictions. Prime ministers like Horgan are not interested, arguing that their provincial budgets funded the training of these professionals and that they cannot risk losing them if the licensing barriers are removed.
Pharmacare
Prescription drug spending is an important component of health care costs, but they have been split into a separate political conversation.
At last summer’s prime ministerial meetings, agreements were reached to collaborate on the bulk purchase of medicines to combat these costs. This work continues.
But more recently, pharmacare has become a federal file, with the Trudeau government first appointing a former Ontario health minister to study how a national drug plan could be implemented and the federal NDP demanding serious progress. towards this goal as a condition for their continued support in the House of Commons.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, on the right, has dismissed suggestions that the federal government should have increased provincial health transfers earlier, suggesting a pandemic is not the right time for long-term funding negotiations. (Justin Tang / The Canadian Press)
If a federal universal drug insurance plan was carried out, it would not only allow for more equitable coverage for Canadians, regardless of where they live, but would also allow provinces that already offer much provincial drug coverage to reassign. this money to their respective health. budgets. So why don’t all prime ministers bow down?
Similar to the $ 10 a day federal child care proposal, each jurisdiction could help, but in a different way, depending on what they already offer. Because of these possible redundancies, the implementation of what may seem like a simple idea becomes complex.
Interprovincial trade barriers
Last Canada Day marked five years since the country’s interprovincial “free trade” agreement went into effect. So why are business groups still complaining about the interprovincial barriers that cost Canada billions in lost productivity and economic growth?
In its recent report card, the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses found that much work remains, with many “F” ratings awarded for lack of progress on specific barriers, such as mutual recognition of credentials or harmonization. of business regulations and records.
Freer trade can help reduce the cost of living and improve life in a very real way.
Next week in Victoria, I will ask my fellow prime ministers to take themselves seriously in reducing costs and creating jobs by making Canada an economic union. pic.twitter.com/FhFZEKFz38
– @jkenny
Last summer’s prime ministerial meetings have featured specific, but incremental, announcements about “releasing beer” or “releasing grapes” (wine), despite a 2018 Supreme Court ruling allowing provinces to continue restricting the interprovincial alcohol trade.
Some prime ministers have liberalized a lot and others might be willing to liberalize more, but there has never been unanimity around the table, especially among prime ministers representing remote northern communities with high rates of trouble. alcohol-related social and health issues.
Sovereignty, part 1: immigration
At a meeting with reporters last week, Scott Moe openly reflected on Saskatchewan’s need to “use all the scope of autonomy we have” and follow Quebec’s example to seek more powers to regulate immigration. Moe argued that he needs more newcomers to follow the economic growth agenda he wants for his province in this tight labor market.
Saskatchewan Prime Minister Scott Moe has expressed interest in allowing provinces to do more to regulate immigration. (Kirk Fraser / CBC)
Over the weekend, Ontario Prime Minister Doug Ford also spoke of “historic labor shortages,” and his Labor minister said thousands of jobs remain unoccupied and that it is urgent that the business community adds more skilled workers in particular. Federal immigration allocations are inadequate, Ontario argues, so you should be free to do anything about it.
Could Quebec Prime Minister François Legault offer some advice to Victoria to seek more independence? Maybe, but the federal government may be reluctant to enable it. Less restrictive immigration policies could exacerbate inequalities: it could be difficult for less popular regions to attract skilled workers and investors if richer provinces open their doors.
Sovereignty, part 2: energy
Moe also told reporters he wants to focus on energy security this week.
The war in …