When we were still talking about these things, the Canadian federal system was long accused of promoting duplication. Allowing Ottawa to arrive with its big clogs and use its spending power to create new programs in provincial jurisdictions.
In theory, a federal system allows regional governments – like Canadian provinces – to take initiatives that, if they work well, can become examples. A kind of healthy emulation between the partners of the federation.
In practice, however, the federal government has too often landed in provincial jurisdictions to create a national program, the same for everyone.
Minister Chrystia Freeland’s most recent budget is a good example. In defense of the minister, the new dental plan for children was a requirement of the New Democratic Party (NDP) to support the minority Liberal government until 2025.
But the NDP has always had a well-deserved reputation for not worrying too much about the provinces or the Constitution when it thinks it has a good idea. Historically, this has rather suited governments in Ottawa. And so much the worse for those who see even more centralization in it.
There are two problems with this dental plan. First, it will be very expensive. The Freeland budget provides $13 billion over five years, nearly double what was budgeted last year. Thereafter, the government estimates that it will cost it $4.4 billion annually.
Most importantly, free dental care programs for low-income families already exist in all provinces. All. It’s not as if the federal government has recently discovered a pressing need that the provinces have overlooked.
They have various and most often smiling names: Healthy Smiles in Ontario. Beautiful smiles, in French, in New Brunswick. Smiles Plus, in Manitoba, etc.
And there are regional differences. Thus, some provinces have dedicated dental clinics. The maximum age varies: 18 in New Brunswick, 17 in Ontario, 14 in Manitoba and 10 in Quebec, but for everyone, not just low-income families.
The three territories also have an embryonic program for young people, but their real problem is a serious shortage of dentists.
But what matters is that all Canadian provinces have a program. And that there is therefore no pressing need for the federal government to interfere in this provincial jurisdiction.
This is the very principle of a federal system. The central government can have objectives. But the Member States, who do the work on the ground, are best placed to judge the modalities.
We were therefore not surprised to see the Minister of Finance, Eric Girard, say that, for Quebec, dental care is not the priority and that the sums that Ottawa could provide should go into the health budget. “It is certain that before creating new programs, we must adequately fund those that we already have,” he said.
What is interesting is the very different way in which the two governments view the possibility of Quebec withdrawing from this federal program.
In Ottawa, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says Quebec can administer the program well, but will have to offer the same coverage as the federal program. This would mean, among other things, extending coverage for children aged 10 to 12.
In Quebec, it is estimated that its share of 2.9 billion would be better used in the health sector in general and not just for dental care.
It is therefore not a dispute over the scope of the right of withdrawal with compensation, but over the very conception of federalism. Who should decide the priorities, and do the provinces only have a say in certain methods of application?
When the federal government decided, shortly before the last election campaign, to launch a national child care program, it transferred $6 billion over five years “so that [le Québec] can improve its network,” Mr. Trudeau said.
“An unconditional transfer,” replied Prime Minister François Legault, without being corrected by his federal counterpart.
Obviously, the “unconditional” was difficult to contradict, since Quebec has a network of early childhood centers that it had financed alone for a quarter of a century.
The fact remains that the divergence of points of view is major, it has concrete effects and these points of view are difficult to reconcile.
Mr. Trudeau has been repeating for several years that the constitutional debate no longer interests anyone. But the reality is that he has just revived it. And, this time, instead of fleeing this debate, the government of François Legault could well stand up to him.