Choices

Over the coming weeks that old beast we call policy will rear its ugly head, as politics watchers prepare for and then comment on the 2012 federal budget. In this budget the government will present the fiscal health of the country and then lay out its plan for tackling the deficit.

A reduction in public spending will be the main focus of the government's plan. The expected scaling down of some government activity was foreshadowed by the Prime Minister this weekend in a letter to his caucus, in which he wrote that Canada's future prosperity will require "tough choices."

The use of the word "choices" interests me. More to the point, it is Mr. Harper's additional comment that the choices to which he was referring would need to be made "together with the Canadian people" which has caught my attention.

To start, the fact that choices need to be made is entirely correct and in keeping with what we should expect of government. Governing is about making choices, and given what is happening in Canada and around the world it is clear that there are a number of policy areas which warrant discussion and decision-making.

My question is where is the discussion?

Some time in the coming weeks you and I will get to see the government's decision. We will get to see what they intend to do (and will safely pass with their majority). What we won't have is a real opportunity to actually consider the choices. And there is no evidence to suggest that any meaningful changes to the budget presented would be accepted by the government.

What we get is, for all intents and purposes, a done deal. There is no choice on offer that can reasonably be described as being one that will be made "together with the Canadian people." Equally frustrating, there is no sense as what options the government has considered as it built this forthcoming budget.

In the absence of any meaningful transparency, I found myself reading two articles today. The first is on health care and the need for the government to think more broadly about how we fund the system and the role of the federal government.

The second is about austerity, arguing that governments have made austerity the defining issue of the day without having a good debate about the other options we face.

Two articles, both thoughtful reads and illustrative of the type of dialogue we should be having as we debate policy. Unfortunately, we are about to debate decisions that have been taken - something which is tantamount to being able to say your peace, even when you know it won't change things. We deserve and should aspire for better.

At least you have your health...

With a little more than two weeks to go before voting day, the issue of health care has been generating more and more attention. This should not be surprising.

- Health care has remained near or at the top of the list of issues Canadians have deemed the most important to them.

- At a time where government austerity of some sort is going to be needed to address the deficit, how government spending on health care might be affected is a topic that needs to be on the table.

- With two weeks to go and the Conservatives still polling strongly, the Opposition parties will look to tap into public concerns about health care and possible funding cuts to gain support.

Let me start with the following observation: it should not take an election to prompt discussion of our health care system, how it is funded and the upcoming challenges we are facing.

This is already the single largest draw on provincial revenues. And transfers to the provinces from the federal government related to health care represent the largest share of government transfers.

Canadians value it. Provinces are responsible for it. All governments pay for it.

Add to that the demographic realities we are facing and the only surprise is that it took nearly three weeks for health care to "rise up" to the top of list of issues being discussed in #elxn41. Yet there it is, featuring in attack ads and duelling talking points and tweets. Here are some of my thoughts.

1. I would start by noting that the Health Accord - the agreement struck between the Martin Liberal government and the provinces - will expire in 2014. As I noted in a blog post last year, if you thought saving GM and Chrysler were expensive wait until the bill comes in for the next iteration of this accord.

The fact that this Accord is: (a) soon to expire; and (b) the big ticket of big ticket items was apparently not sufficient for it to feature prominently in the platforms of the Conservatives and Liberals. As a result, we have seen the parties simply reaffirm their commitment to the Accord and its funding during scrums. As Andrew Coyne has noted, we are essentially making policy on the fly.

While I favour a commitment to funding, I have to admit that I am dismayed by the lack of discussion about how Canada is going to address the challenges demographics will present to our system. In effect, we are committing funding without having really discussed the demand, the needs of tomorrow. This is not the best way to make policy, and all parties are guilty of going down this path.

2. Despite this being identified as their most important issue, I am not sure Canadians really understand how the system works and how it is funded. In a 2009 posting on this blog (*sigh* has it been that long?), I wrote about the division of powers and how we have the system we have - http://politicswatcher.blogspot.com/2009/10/you-get-this-i-get-that-division-of.html.

We have a system in which responsibility for delivering health care resides with the provinces, but the core means for generating the funds necessary for running it reside with the federal government. One has the responsibility, the other the cash.

Over the years, this has been addressed through funding agreements (cash and tax points) from Ottawa to the provinces. Unfortunately, from my perspective previous discussions and the subsequent agreements have focused on cash being the solution. The dialogue almost seems to be along the lines of: "If there was more money available, the current problems (wait times, access to equipment, etc.) would go away."

Money is only a solution to problem if you have properly and honestly considered the problem, and discussed all solutions. I am not sure that this has been done.

The result? Commitments to funding, accusations focusing on past behaviour and warnings about future agendas. Sadly, none of this will do anything to address health care. None of this is showing the public that there is a real willingness to do something about the area we have said matters most to us.

3. Building on the point above, we also have the Canada Health Act which essentially lays out the principles the federal government expects the provinces to adhere to in exchange for federal money.

But do Canadians really understand the Act, what it says, how the provinces interpret it? Again, I am not sure they do. Yet this is what is raised to them during campaigns and speeches. It would be more meaningful when one says they will "defend the Canada Health Act" if the audience knew what that meant.

So at the end of all of this, here is what I see:

- it's valued;
- it's expensive;
- different levels of government are responsible for it; and
- it's about to face some serious challenges - in the context of our fiscal position and more importantly in the context of our changing demographics.

In the end, we have to talk about it. Together. It can't be a line in a scrum intended to take the issue of the table. It can't be an attack ad. It has to be a discussion.

Are we prepared for it?