The sacrosanct budgetary secrecy is no longer popular in Ottawa. Justin Trudeau’s government prefers pre-budgetary sifting this year, over the course of a major tour allowing it to list on a daily basis the measures that will be proposed in the document.
Respect for Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction has also been resolutely dismissed by the Liberal team, which day after day prides itself on announcements that encroach ever more into the areas of education and, above all, housing.
In the name of younger generations of tenants caught in the throat by exorbitant rents, when housing is available, the federal government wants to impose its solutions: a Canadian tenants’ charter creating a register of rent history in order to avoid increases exaggerated, as well as a standardized lease, among others. François Legault’s government barely had time to protest when Justin Trudeau’s government did it again, warning that this new national standard would be conditional on the provinces being granted five billion dollars in housing-related infrastructure funds. In the absence of an agreement by the end of the year, these amounts will go directly to the municipalities.
Ottawa may hope for fruitful talks with Quebec, but it has just set a completely different tone.
The confrontational and punitive approach is partly inspired by that which allowed Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre to recruit young Canadians who have now turned their backs on Justin Trudeau. Municipalities are thus warned that, to benefit from public transportation funding, they will have to build near these service lines as well as post-secondary establishments.
Although Mr. Trudeau recognized this summer that housing is “not a primary federal responsibility,” it is clear that it is suddenly no longer a concern. The encroachment is being done with both feet — in the name of the housing crisis, but above all the imperative to respond to the persistent popularity of Pierre Poilievre. New Democratic ally Jagmeet Singh asks for nothing better than to give free rein to the DNA of uninhibited interventionism of the federal Liberals. Added to the bouquet of pre-budget and quasi-provincial announcements is that of a national school feeding program.
The largesse of the federal government in availing itself of the spending power obviously precedes that of the Trudeau government. However, a recent study by the Institute for Research in Public Policy noted, since 2015, “a more directive and less collaborative use”, a “partnership [qui] appears to be conditional on the provinces’ acceptance of the federal government’s political vision.
Justin Trudeau is betting that citizens in need will not be moved by a soporific constitutional debate.
The government of François Legault actually attracted criticism by refusing to include in its bill 31 this rent register which would have allowed tenants to hope for control of their abusive increases. The Quebec drug insurance program — another area of liberal interference — can also be improved, because it is very expensive. The indignation of the Quebec government being entirely justified, it should still be careful not to condone this federal interference in the minds of its citizens.
Because these, concocted by Ottawa far from the realities on the ground, are not without perverse effects. And when these programs or conditional fund transfers are poorly designed or abandoned along the way, it is these same citizens who are the first to be harmed.
The dental insurance orchestrated by the Liberal-New Democrat alliance is a telling example. The Quebec government is concerned to see dentists prioritizing the clientele who will benefit from the generous federal reimbursement program over those less well off (social assistance recipients or children) covered by the Quebec equivalent. The exodus of dentists from rural areas to urban centers with a larger number of clients is also a concern.
Several provinces also deplore, like Quebec, that Ottawa is increasing new programs while underfunding existing transfers. In doing so, the federal government also creates, even in asymmetrical agreements, a new demand without guaranteeing that it will subsequently be fully met. A possible budgetary austerity, which may be imposed by repeated deficits, or a change of government will inevitably reorient priorities.
The late constitutionalist and former Quebec minister, Benoît Pelletier, exposed in our pages these perverse effects of recourse to this power to spend without constraints, explaining that Quebec “fears, once the dike is opened, that it will no longer be able to contain the flood of federal spending. Seven years later, history is proving him right. And Quebec is no longer the only one to be outraged.