I think Andrew Coyne pretty much nails it on this one....
A beginner’s guide to understanding premier-speak
Andrew Coyne Jul 27, 2012
Article Link
The premiers could not have been prouder of themselves. Appearing before the microphones during a break in discussions at the Council of the Federation, the name they insist on being called at these meetings, the artists formerly known as premiers took turns congratulating themselves on their handiwork: a 26-page document in which they undertook to make various improvements to their health care systems, albeit voluntarily. “We decided as provinces we were going to take this on ourselves,” said P.E.I.’s Robert Ghiz. “We don’t need the federal government.”
At this point you may be feeling a certain sense of bewilderment. Isn’t health care a … provincial responsibility? Why would they need the federal government to do something that is entirely within their bailiwick, that they acknowledge they ought to have done long ago, and that they have not fully committed to doing even now? Didn’t they use to protest, bitterly and without end, at federal “interference” in such matters?
Didn’t they demand, nevertheless, that Ottawa continue to foot a large part of the bill for their “exclusive” responsibility, only without any of the conditions the feds were fond of attaching? And isn’t that exactly what the Conservative government promised last December: to keep transfers growing at 6% annually through 2017, plus further increases in line with the economy after that — no strings attached? Yet that decision is now denounced as an abdication of federal “leadership.”
If you are wondering how the feds can be faulted for doing exactly what the provinces have always told them to do, or how a permanent annual increase in federal transfers — as fast as or faster than the economy; faster, in fact, than provincial health budgets are projected to grow — works out to a $36-billion “cut”, as the premiers claim in another paper, you have not mastered the sometimes arcane language in which the premiers habitually speak.
For example, when the premiers describe something as “provincial jurisdiction,” that does not mean the feds should not be involved. It means they should be involved, but only as and when the provinces tell them to: namely, to pay the bills. Thus, unlike health care, in which Ottawa must be “involved,” any federal involvement in energy policy is, according to Quebec’s Jean Charest, strictly “invitation-only.”
On the other hand, provinces may invade federal jurisdiction at will, or at the least demand a say. Charest mentioned employment insurance, on a long list. Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall has lately called for a formal provincial role in decisions on foreign investment. B.C.’s Christy Clark seems to have taken over both foreign and interprovincial trade with regard to the Gateway Pipeline.
When the premiers decry the absence of federal “leadership,” they do not mean they want the federal government to actually lead anything
When the premiers decry the absence of federal “leadership,” similarly, they do not mean they want the federal government to actually lead anything. They want it to follow: to do exactly as they say, notably in matters of funding. Some other terms in the provincial lexicon:
Unilateralism. “We are in a period of unilateralism on the federal government’s part,” Charest complained, citing the health care funding decision (in premierspeak: ultimatum). Ottawa is said to be acting “unilaterally” when it spends federal money as it pleases, that is without consulting the provinces. Provinces, on the other hand, insist on the right to spend federal money as they please. For example, when Charest took delivery of $700-million in federal funds offered up in the name of fixing the “fiscal imbalance” and used it instead to cut taxes, that was not unilateralism. See: federalism (profitable).
Negotiations. The federal government, says Ghiz, “did not want to sit down with the provinces to negotiate on health care.” But what was there to negotiate? Negotiations imply a give and take; each side brings something to the table, and offers them in exchange. The provinces bring nothing to these “negotiations.” They do not offer anything in exchange for more federal money. They simply demand it.
Co-operative federalism. When the feds agree to do as the provinces say (see: leadership), or more properly when the provinces agree to let them. Manitoba’s Greg Selinger: “We remain very committed to the notion of co-operative federalism.”
Imbalance. Give us more money. “If you were to look at your paycheque,” according to Nova Scotia’s Darrell Dexter, “two-thirds of the tax that you pay goes to the federal government and yet the provinces deliver 80% of the services. That clearly is an imbalance.” Well, yes: because a quarter of the federal budget goes out the door to the provinces. There’s a simple cure for that sort of “imbalance.” Stop sending them any money. Let the provinces raise their own taxes.
Deepened relationship. Also more money. The next step, says Dexter, “is a further examination [of] the need for a deepened relationship on these issues with the federal government.” That’s why he wants the prime minister to meet with the premiers on the economy this fall: to examine the need for a “deepened relationship.”
Productive discussions. This one’s federal, actually. As in the response to Dexter’s invitation from the prime minister’s spokesman: “The prime minister has had many productive discussions on the economy with his provincial counterparts and will surely have many more over the months to come.” Translation: not in this life.
National energy strategy. Sorry, you’re on your own. Nobody knows what this means.
end
A beginner’s guide to understanding premier-speak
Andrew Coyne Jul 27, 2012
Article Link
The premiers could not have been prouder of themselves. Appearing before the microphones during a break in discussions at the Council of the Federation, the name they insist on being called at these meetings, the artists formerly known as premiers took turns congratulating themselves on their handiwork: a 26-page document in which they undertook to make various improvements to their health care systems, albeit voluntarily. “We decided as provinces we were going to take this on ourselves,” said P.E.I.’s Robert Ghiz. “We don’t need the federal government.”
At this point you may be feeling a certain sense of bewilderment. Isn’t health care a … provincial responsibility? Why would they need the federal government to do something that is entirely within their bailiwick, that they acknowledge they ought to have done long ago, and that they have not fully committed to doing even now? Didn’t they use to protest, bitterly and without end, at federal “interference” in such matters?
Didn’t they demand, nevertheless, that Ottawa continue to foot a large part of the bill for their “exclusive” responsibility, only without any of the conditions the feds were fond of attaching? And isn’t that exactly what the Conservative government promised last December: to keep transfers growing at 6% annually through 2017, plus further increases in line with the economy after that — no strings attached? Yet that decision is now denounced as an abdication of federal “leadership.”
If you are wondering how the feds can be faulted for doing exactly what the provinces have always told them to do, or how a permanent annual increase in federal transfers — as fast as or faster than the economy; faster, in fact, than provincial health budgets are projected to grow — works out to a $36-billion “cut”, as the premiers claim in another paper, you have not mastered the sometimes arcane language in which the premiers habitually speak.
For example, when the premiers describe something as “provincial jurisdiction,” that does not mean the feds should not be involved. It means they should be involved, but only as and when the provinces tell them to: namely, to pay the bills. Thus, unlike health care, in which Ottawa must be “involved,” any federal involvement in energy policy is, according to Quebec’s Jean Charest, strictly “invitation-only.”
On the other hand, provinces may invade federal jurisdiction at will, or at the least demand a say. Charest mentioned employment insurance, on a long list. Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall has lately called for a formal provincial role in decisions on foreign investment. B.C.’s Christy Clark seems to have taken over both foreign and interprovincial trade with regard to the Gateway Pipeline.
When the premiers decry the absence of federal “leadership,” they do not mean they want the federal government to actually lead anything
When the premiers decry the absence of federal “leadership,” similarly, they do not mean they want the federal government to actually lead anything. They want it to follow: to do exactly as they say, notably in matters of funding. Some other terms in the provincial lexicon:
Unilateralism. “We are in a period of unilateralism on the federal government’s part,” Charest complained, citing the health care funding decision (in premierspeak: ultimatum). Ottawa is said to be acting “unilaterally” when it spends federal money as it pleases, that is without consulting the provinces. Provinces, on the other hand, insist on the right to spend federal money as they please. For example, when Charest took delivery of $700-million in federal funds offered up in the name of fixing the “fiscal imbalance” and used it instead to cut taxes, that was not unilateralism. See: federalism (profitable).
Negotiations. The federal government, says Ghiz, “did not want to sit down with the provinces to negotiate on health care.” But what was there to negotiate? Negotiations imply a give and take; each side brings something to the table, and offers them in exchange. The provinces bring nothing to these “negotiations.” They do not offer anything in exchange for more federal money. They simply demand it.
Co-operative federalism. When the feds agree to do as the provinces say (see: leadership), or more properly when the provinces agree to let them. Manitoba’s Greg Selinger: “We remain very committed to the notion of co-operative federalism.”
Imbalance. Give us more money. “If you were to look at your paycheque,” according to Nova Scotia’s Darrell Dexter, “two-thirds of the tax that you pay goes to the federal government and yet the provinces deliver 80% of the services. That clearly is an imbalance.” Well, yes: because a quarter of the federal budget goes out the door to the provinces. There’s a simple cure for that sort of “imbalance.” Stop sending them any money. Let the provinces raise their own taxes.
Deepened relationship. Also more money. The next step, says Dexter, “is a further examination [of] the need for a deepened relationship on these issues with the federal government.” That’s why he wants the prime minister to meet with the premiers on the economy this fall: to examine the need for a “deepened relationship.”
Productive discussions. This one’s federal, actually. As in the response to Dexter’s invitation from the prime minister’s spokesman: “The prime minister has had many productive discussions on the economy with his provincial counterparts and will surely have many more over the months to come.” Translation: not in this life.
National energy strategy. Sorry, you’re on your own. Nobody knows what this means.
end
