Point of View 2-Book Bundle. Douglas L. Bland

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ the welfare state developed, the first such provincial areas “delegated” were heath, education, and welfare. In funding programs, conditional on the provincial delivery conforming to a certain standard, Ottawa was essentially circumventing the Constitution. By attaching conditions to the funding, the federal government was indirectly legislating in areas it formally could not, given its lack of constitutional jurisdiction.

      Ottawa bureaucrats, interested in social engineering, were only too happy to design national programs requiring compliance with their national standards, even if the programs involved matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, such as health care and highways. Indeed, such programs eventually expanded to include municipal matters such as housing and crumbling municipal infrastructure.

      Cash-strapped provincial and municipal politicians, mindful of the increased costs of a growing populations and the need to provide health care and education provincially and public transit and replace infrastructure in aging cities, were either happy to take the money or resigned to the notion that it was a necessity. In some cases, the federal government was even able to strong-arm the provinces to spend monies it may not otherwise have been inclined to, or risk losing the 50 percent federal contribution. The federal government introduced public medical health insurance and the Canada Assistance plan and offered to pick up 50 percent of the tab for the provinces that chose to participate.[2] However, whatever the case, the conditions prescribed were a constant irritant, always the subject of protracted negotiation, necessitating many bureaucrats. The delivery of the programs became equally complex, as the various departments from the various levels of government applied their differing procedures and processes for project management and evaluation.

      The administrative cost of shared programs began to consume greater and greater portions of the funding envelopes. Bureaucracies grew as multilevel institutional structures were improvised to administer these projects; programs and service delivery did not improve but costs soared. It is counterintuitive to believe that multiple bureaucratic structures, answering to different political masters, all with different priorities, would result in anything but inflated cost, inefficiency and delay.

      There is only one taxpayer. Governments seem to be oblivious to the realty that regardless of which level of government is involved in financing a project, it is the same taxpayer who is contributing to that government’s coffers. Having more than one level of government involved may produce what appears to be a sharing of the burden; however, given the exponentially increased cost of having multiple levels of bureaucracy administer the same project, the reality of attempted burden sharing is a significantly increased burden on the taxpayer bankrolling all levels of participating governments.

      Surely it would be more cost effective to have one level of government design, approve, fund, build, monitor, and then maintain a public work. Having multiple bureaucracies in charge results in no one really being in charge, least of all the taxpayer, who is funding the tab for this bloated and inefficient delivery model. Such a solution would require a serious discussion regarding the rebalancing of constitutional authority so that taxing ability more closely aligns with jurisdictional responsibilities. But, the cumulative cost to the taxpayer would be significantly reduced if duplicate bureaucracies were eliminated and responsibility and accountability restored to a single level of government.

      Cost-shared programs are currently so entrenched that they have essentially become institutionalized. Applicants believe that any mega project ought to be shared equally by the respective levels of government. The inefficiencies of having duplicated and triplicated bureaucracies administer the same programs aside, we have completely lost sight of the divisions of power in the Canadian Constitution.

      In the process, accountability has been entirely compromised. When the lines of jurisdiction become blurred, the lines of accountability become complex and impossible to follow. When a cost-shared program or project goes sideways, who gets the blame? Which level of government will willingly take responsibility for a program or project that goes off the rails? It will eventually require an expensive audit, also at taxpayer expense, to finally resolve the issue!

      Although the federal-provincial and three-way cost-sharing programs were designed to promote national standards and burden-sharing, their real effect has been to blur constitutional lines of responsibility and, as costs skyrocketed, end any concept of financial responsibility for the projects. The lines of responsibility have been irrevocably blurred and accountability for these projects compromised, if not destroyed. Taxpayers and citizens deserve a higher level of accountability and oversight from all levels of government for how their tax dollars are spent. The division of power was created to assure appropriate checks and balances within the federal state. Power must be divided, not concentrated, and always subject to review and preferably restraint.

      4

      Parliament: A Broken Institution

      Under the constitutional convention of responsible government, the government (the executive) is accountable and responsible to the Parliament of Canada. Yet the Canadian Parliament, including all of its constituent elements, is failing miserably in its constitutional obligation. My observations are institutional, not partisan nor personal. The problems are systemic and endemic; ironically, the only institution with the authority to remedy this glaring democratic deficit has no incentive to do so.

      The current Conservative government treats Parliament as an inconvenience at best and with contempt at worst. The current executive routinely shuts down debate by implementing time allocation (it has imposed strict time limits on debate seventy times since the last election); it has prorogued Parliament to avoid a confidence motion it was sure it was going to lose, shut down a parliamentary committee investigating the transfer of Afghan detainees without obtaining assurances against torture, and to avoid, for over a month, answering awkward questions regarding the PMO involvement in the Senate Expenses Scandal. Finally, in 2011 the government was found in contempt of Parliament for its refusal to provide detailed cost estimates for hosting the G20 Summit and the cost of purchasing new fighter jets to the parliamentary committee studying the matter.

      Amazingly, the government was not even embarrassed by being held in contempt of Parliament. In the election that followed Parliament’s loss of confidence in the government, the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) argued its detractors were playing partisan games and were conspiring to form a coalition government. As a result, the Conservative government was rewarded with a majority mandate by the electorate!

      The current government, somewhat reluctantly, acknowledges Parliament as a legislative body with lawmaking authority. But to the greatest extent possible, it prefers to run all aspects of Parliament rather than be accountable to it. The current government prefers to govern by Order-in-Council and executive edict as opposed to having to answer to an occasionally meddlesome Parliament.

      As a result, the executive has so neutered the institutions of Parliament as to render them nearly impotent, practically unable to fulfill their constitutional duty to hold the executive to account. Any Ottawa insider will verify that almost nothing goes on in the Parliamentary Precinct without the Prime Minister’s Office’s knowledge, consent, and, increasingly frequently, direction.

      Executive control and interference has converted all of the major components of the Parliament of Canada, changing them from serving as meaningful checks on government power to serving as placators, complicit in the government agenda The institutions of Parliament, which are failing Canadians in holding government to account, are the House of Commons, the committees of the House of Commons, the government caucus, and the Senate of Canada.

      Constitutional expert Peter Russell once famously wrote that a Canadian prime minister with a majority mandate is like a U.S. president without a Congress.[1] Sadly, that is true; a prime СКАЧАТЬ