Think tank warns Ottawa to stay in its constitutional lane

An economic think tank is calling on the federal government to remain in its constitutional lane as a means to achieve optimal success and to keep regional unrest at bay.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

An economic think tank is calling on the federal government to remain in its constitutional lane as a means to achieve optimal success and to keep regional unrest at bay.

“Ottawa’s increasing intrusions into provincial areas of responsibility have led to increased regional tensions and separatist threats in Quebec and Western Canada,” said Livio Di Matteo, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the study.

“The evidence is clear—the Canadian federation works best, and national unity is strongest, when Ottawa and the provinces stay in their own constitutional lanes.”

The study, published on Tuesday, aims to “keep the peace” between federal-provincial relations.

The researchers outlined the different responsibilities between the two branches of government and reviewed conflicts throughout history that stemmed from the federal government overstepping its boundaries.

“While such intrusions may have been necessary during periods of national crisis, experience tells us that Canada usually works best when the two levels of government stick to their constitutional lanes,” reads the study.

When Ottawa has extended its reach into provincial jurisdiction in the past, it has often exacerbated political tensions, which then often pose a risk to national unity.

“The Justin Trudeau era saw forays into the creation of pan-Canadian social programs, including daycare programs, the carbon tax, and expansive environmental and energy-related regulations,” it said.

The study argued that the former prime minister’s disregard for provincial jurisdiction has left the federation “more divided than at any time since the Quebec sovereigntist movement” during the 1995 referendum.

“When the federal government encroaches on provincial responsibility, such as during the 1970s, regional tensions and separatist threats increase,” it said.

“By contrast, during times of so-called ‘passive federalism’ when Ottawa doesn’t intrude in areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as the mid-1990s to 2015, regional tensions and support for separatist movements subside.”

When the federal government increases its spending on shared or even sole provincial jurisdiction programs, such as pollution abatement or K–12 education, it decreases its spending on its own responsibilities, such as military defence and immigration.

Federal spending in provincial areas has skyrocketed compared to spending in federal sectors over the last decade.

For example, Ottawa increased K-12 spending by 201.2 per cent since 2014, while only increasing its military defence spending by 43.1 per cent.

Federal involvement in areas of provincial responsibility has been steadily increasing, most notably with dental care, pharma care, daycare and the carbon tax.

Overall, federal overreach can be best observed in the form of financial transfers to provinces, which saw a 588 per cent increase between 2015 and last year.

While these federal transfers can be helpful to provinces, they also don’t come without strings attached, often forcing provinces to relinquish aspects of their control over certain social programs in the process.

Maintaining the separation of responsibilities between these two levels of government “has become more important than ever given the emerging tariff war with the United States,” the study noted.

The institute warned the Carney government that provincial cooperation and participation would be required to “embark on a new national policy and nation-building approach to Canadian economic prosperity.”

“If they need to embark on initiatives that cross lanes of jurisdiction, governments need to signal their intentions and to consult with other parties to negotiate,” it concluded.

“When they don’t, the invariable result is a political traffic jam at best and national discord and political rupture at worst. At minimum, the various levels of government have an obligation to consult and confer with each other when embarking on major expenditure programs rather than operating in behavioural silos.”