Canada West Foundation Blog

By: Michael Holden

Just in time for Christmas, the federal government has announced a new funding plan for health care. The present funding agreement, in which federal cash transfers to the provinces and territories grow by 6% per year, is set to expire in 2013-2014. The new ten-year plan will see that 6% annual escalator maintained through to 2016-2017. Thereafter, federal cash transfers for health care will be tied to annual growth in nominal (i.e., not adjusted for inflation) economic output, with a floor provision that guarantees a minimum increase of 3% per year, regardless of how well the economy actually does.

This unilateral announcement caught many people off guard. Federal-provincial transfers have always been a sensitive and nuanced subject and new funding agreements typically come only after extensive, public, and often bitter negotiations between Ottawa and the provinces. Many people were just beginning to get geared up for the next round of talks, which now appear to have been cut off at the pass.

Reaction across the provinces to the new arrangement has been mixed. Alberta is strongly supportive, for reasons that I will discuss below, while BC and Saskatchewan are also largely in favour. In the rest of Canada, however, the backlash has been harsh. It being the Christmas season, “lump of coal” metaphors abound.

This backlash is rooted in the interpretation of a Conservative Party campaign promise during the last election; several provinces had expected the 6% escalator to be maintained over the entirety of the new funding arrangement. Tying federal transfers to economic output will almost certainly result in slower growth in health transfers beginning in 2017-2018.

How much slower is anyone’s guess at this point. However, historical data suggest that nominal economic growth in Canada has actually been quite consistent over the long term, averaging 4.2% over the past 10 years, 4.7% over the past 15 years and 4.5% over the past 20 years. Assuming growth at the low end of that range (4.2%) over the duration of the new plan, total federal health transfers to the provinces can be expected to increase from about $30 billion in 2013-2014 to about $47.7 billion in 2023-2024. Had the 6% escalator remained in place, transfers would have reached $53.7 billion.

As I hinted at above, Alberta is the clear winner under this new funding arrangement. One of the less-publicized changes it will bring is that cash transfers for health care will be distributed across the provinces on an equal-per-capita basis. At present, this is not the case. The history and complexities of federal transfers are too complicated to get into here, but the end result is that wealthy provinces (with strong tax bases) currently receive less cash per person from the federal government for health care than poorer provinces. Since Alberta is by far the wealthiest, it receives far less on a per-capita basis than the other provinces.

When the new funding arrangement comes into effect, there will be a large increase in per-capita cash transfers to Alberta in order for it to reach the same level as the other provinces. This change is bound to be controversial. Alberta is already the richest province in Canada. For it to receive a perceived “windfall” of cash may not sit well with some provinces, especially since the increase in payments to Alberta will, by definition, come at the expense of increases to other provinces (because all funds come out of a fixed pool).

One thing is for certain; after a few quiet years, fiscal federalism and issues about federal-provincial transfers suddenly are back in the public policy spotlight. We will be writing more on these subjects in the months ahead.

By: Dr. Roger Gibbins

Throughout 2011, Canadians took comfort in the fact that as the world around them seemed to go to hell in a hand basket, life was pretty good here at home. Although the Canadian economy sagged a bit, it held up well by comparison with our major trading partners. Stock markets rebounded, employment did not plummet, and across western Canada there was real economic growth and widespread prosperity.

Unlike the political deadlock and acrimony that has become increasingly characteristic of political life south of the border, Canadian governments enjoyed reasonably strong electoral support and, for better or for worse, we have been freed from the paralysis of minority governments in Ottawa. All in all, 2011 goes down as a pretty good year for Canada admidst a general international environment of uncertainty and unease.

Nonetheless, it is difficult to look forward to 2012 with anything close to unbridled optimism. Economic and political conditions in the United States, still our major market for virtually anything we produce, are unlikely to improve as Americans lurch toward the November elections. Economic conditions in Europe remain grave. Closer to home, western Canadians face huge challenges in moving resource assets to new international markets while at the same time, American markets are soft and/or overflowing with conventional Canadian products such as natural gas.

So often western Canadians believe that we have the resources the world needs, and assume the world will beat a path to our doors. Quite understandably, resource wealth breeds complacency. Increasingly, however, we realize that we will have to do much of the beating, that our competitors are many and often better positioned geographically, and that the barriers to international market access are challenging in the extreme. Being resource rich in the absence of markets is not a recipe for sustainable prosperity.

In 2012, Canadians from across the country will also have to come to grips with growing regional imbalances within the national economy, and how these play out through the frameworks of fiscal federalism and in a period of growing financial constraints for all governments—federal, provincial and municipal. On balance, western Canadians are doing very well, but how do we reconcile regional prosperity here with more disadvantaged regions of the country? How do we ensure that regional economic strength is encouraged as a national asset, and not seen as a target?

None of this means that Canadians should be fearful when looking ahead to 2012. At the same time, we will face some truly intimidating policy and political challenges as we try to re-jig the Canadian federal system and national economy to meet unstable and rapidly changing global conditions. The upcoming year will not be a time for the faint of heart, or a time for complacency. But then, to quote the last words of Australian bushwhacker Ned Kelly as he stood on the scaffold, such is life. Or, in the more current vernacular, bring it on!

On behalf of the Foundation, I would like to wish you all the best for the holidays. Thank you for your engagement over the past year. As 2012 approaches, we look forward to continuing our work as the only think tank dedicated to being the objective, nonpartisan voice for issues of vital concern to western Canadians.

By: Roslyn Kunin

Any reporter knows that if you can get the answers to six questions, you have a story. The questions are Who? What? Where? When? Why? And How?

The biggest economic story that is likely to affect all parts of Canada as we move out of 2011 and into 2012 is not within Canada. Nor is it in Asia, the source of much of global economic growth. It is not in Africa which we should be starting to watch as that continent begins to exhibit growth patterns similar to those in China and India of a few decades ago.

The story concerns the very precarious financial situation in Europe and the on-going, increasingly desperate attempts to ameliorate things or at least generate enough stability to avoid conditions becoming any worse.

So far, we have answered the “what” and the “where” questions. The “when” is now. The “why” is generating growing concern among both political and business leaders and informed citizens. Failure to put Europe back on a secure financial footing could spell the end of the euro as a widespread and growing common currency. It could threaten the European common market and the resulting free trade and mobility. The simple uncertainty of the situation could generate economic retraction in Europe, which could then spread to the rest of the world.

This has led the political leaders in Europe to earnestly seek out “how” to avoid these dire consequences. Greece and Italy have positioned unelected technocrats as heads of their governments, hoping they will be able to find and implement the tough answers needed.

An almost continuous series of summit meetings has been held, featuring Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Angela Merkel of Germany, each meeting seeming to lead only to the next summit meeting. The latest meeting did result in some more specific proposals, including a tax on financial transactions.

Already Britain and others in Europe are stepping back from this potential solution. Nevertheless, the situation is serious enough that this proposal just might work. Merkel has already stated progress could be made even if not all countries choose to participate.

However, there is still one very important unanswered question. The current proposal, and indeed any solution, will involve imposing fiscal and monetary requirements on individual countries. Rules will be set and penalties specified for breaking those rules. The big remaining question is “who” will apply and enforce these rules and penalties?

Europe and the euro zone have always had rules. They were often broken. If previously established deficit limits had been adhered to, Europe would not be in its current mess. So putting in place more rules that will intrude even more deeply into national sovereignty and expecting them to work requires a leap of faith. Unless, and until, there is an agreed upon body with both power and widespread consensual support, an effective solution to the European problem will remain elusive.