Back to Daily Press Review

More asymmetry than federalism

Like most intergovernmental agreements, last week's health accord was about words and money.

The words were a combined effort, drafted in camera after Prime Minister Paul Martin and the premiers got down to short strokes. Mr. Martin supplied the dollars — more than he had offered on the eve of the conference, and certainly many more than would have been on offer had he not gone into rhetorical overdrive during the election campaign and promised to stay on camera as long as necessary to fix the system for a generation.

In the high-pressure atmosphere of a first ministers conference — with the media focusing on whether there will be an agreement or not — it's always tempting for the participants to look for constructive ambiguity to bridge differences. How else can one possibly explain one communiqué: “Recognizing that an asymmetrical federalism allows for the existence of specific agreements for any province, first ministers also agreed that a separate communiqué be released to reflect the arrangements between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec regarding the interpretation and the implementation of the present communiqué.”

The trouble is, in Quebec, the focus has been almost exclusively on that communiqué — a two-page document titled “Asymetrical [sic!] Federalism That Respects Quebec's Jurisdiction.” In it, the “A” term is defined as “flexible federalism that notably allows for the existence of specific agreements and arrangements adapted to Quebec's specificity . . . ” It's in that spirit — indeed, almost as a quasi-revolutionary breakthrough — that the media have enthusiastically greeted the health accord: The rest of Canada has finally recognized Quebec's specificity.

Now, expectations are running high for more of the same in future. No doubt looking to increase their support in Quebec — and untroubled by the contradiction in forming a majority government in a province that would increasingly be exempted from federal powers — Mr. Martin's ministers have done nothing to dampen the giddiness. Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew has even said that the health accord recognizes the “Quebec people,” which will give heartburn to lawyers and diplomats at his ministry's headquarters.

Outside Quebec, concerns have been expressed that the health agreement is the son of Meech (the constitutional accord that foundered in part because of its “distinct society” provision.) Mr. Martin counters, “Quebec society is distinct,” adding that protection of its jurisdiction over health is very important.

True, but it's hard to argue that Quebeckers have distinct diabetes and asymmetrical aortas, or that its health-care system offers particular prostheses or special surgeries.

Opposition Leader Stephen Harper maintains that the health accord is nothing like the Meech Lake accord, which he opposed, and that he has always supported provincial jurisdiction for health. Fine, but the spending power — under which Ottawa will transfer the billions of health-care dollars — is an area of federal jurisdiction.

NDP leader Jack Layton says he's always supported asymmetrical federalism for Quebec, but he criticizes the agreement for not addressing the “growth of private delivery” — overlooking the fact that there are more private clinics in that province than there are in Alberta, and that Quebec Premier Jean Charest has already said that in the first year of this new accord, Ottawa's money will go to reducing provincial taxes.

After viewing the conference as a commentator for CBC and applauding the merits of asymmetrical arrangements for Quebec, former Saskatchewan premier and national health commissioner Roy Romanow is now expressing concern that the agreement opens the door to Alberta and other provinces to go their own way.

We find ourselves in this predicament of waffling about the nature of our federation because we have refused for many years to have an adult discussion about what we want to do together as Canadians, and what we want to do separately. If we agree now that Quebec's health system is distinct, where could you possibly draw a principled line on Quebec's status short of sovereignty-association or, failing that, a separate state? No wonder Jacques Parizeau is reported to be rejoicing this week.

Both Mr. Martin and Mr. Romanow have cited Quebec's pension plan as a precedent, seemingly forgetting that Pierre Trudeau entered politics to fight against the trend toward special status. They've also mentioned that Quebec chose to stay out of the national health council, forgetting that Alberta took the same decision.

In diplomacy, former U.S. secretary of state George Shultz often said, words matter. That's also true in federal-provincial relations — particularly when one of the partners, Quebec, starts with a rock-solid consensus that it is a “nation.”

Mr. Martin and the premiers should clear up the confusion before too much more damage is done.

nspector@globeandmail.ca