Accountability Regimes for Federal Social Transfers. An Exercise in Deconstruction and Reconstruction

• Author: Barbara Cameron
• Profession: Associate Professor, Department of Political Science and Department of Equity Studies, York University and Research Partner in the SSHRC-CURA Research Project 'Reconceiving Human Rights Practice'
• Pages: 129-153

► 129

► ► ► ►

chapter 4

ACCOUNTABILITY REGIMES FOR

FEDERAL SOCIAL TRANSFERS

AN EXERCISE IN DECONSTRUCTION

AND RECONSTRUCTION*

BarBara caMeron†

A. INTRODUCTION

Transfers from the federal government to the provinces for social prog rams

within provincial legislative juri sdiction played an importa nt role in both

the promotion and the erosion of social citizensh ip rights in Canada. The

constructive use of the transfers was seen in the creation of a Canada-

wide system of universal, publicly ad ministered medical insurance (medi-

care) and national norms for soci al assistance under the Canada Assistance

Plan.1 With the elite retreat from the Keynesian welfare State, the de-

structive p ossibilities were apparent in unilateral reductions by the federa l

* Research for th is chapter was supporte d by the Social Sciences a nd Humanities

Research Counc il of Canada (Commun ity-University Resea rch Alliance P rogram).

The analy sis in the chapter emerged out of t he author’s collaboration wit h the Child

Care Advocac y Association of Can ada around Bill C-303 , Early Learning and Child

Care Act, a private member’s bil l introduced by the New Democrat ic Party in the 39t h

Parliament , 1st Session, and the 39th P arliament, 2nd Session , where it was debated

at third read ing. It was reintroduced in the 4 0th Parliament, 2nd Se ssion as Bill C-373.

This text i s also published as Ch apter 12 in Peter Graefe et al, ed s, Overpromising and

Underperforming? Understanding and Evaluating New Intergovernmental Accountability

Regimes (Toronto: University of Toronto Press for the Instit ute of Public Admini stra-

tion of Canad a, 2013) 258.

† Associate P rofessor, Department of Politic al Science and Depar tment of Equity

Studies, York University a nd Research Part ner in the SSHRC-CUR A Research Project

“Reconceiving Hu man Rights Prac tice,” online: www.soc ialrightscu ra.ca.

1 Canada Assistance Plan, RSC 1985 , c 1.

130 ► barbara cameron

government in the amounts tran sferred to provinces and the weakeni ng

or outright elimination of the conditions attached to the funds. A s a con-

sequence, social rights advocates i n Canada outside of Quebec beca me

increasingly concerned about accountability in the tran sfers. They con-

tinue to call not only for increases in funding for socia l transfers but also

and very emphatically for the en forcement of existing federal conditions

(in th e Canada Health Act2), the reinstatement of federal conditions that

were eliminated (for social ass istance in the Canada A ssistance Plan), the

introduction of new federal standa rds (for post-secondary education, hous-

ing, poverty), and the creation of new programs w ith enforceable stan-

dards (for child care services). The alternatives proposed to federal social

transfers — in the form of the social and economic union provisions of

the Charlottetown Agreement, the Social Union Framework, interprov-

incial cooperation through the Council of the Federation, or devolution

to the provinces — have not been seen by these advocates as initiatives to

strengthen so cial rights.

The federal spending power and the soc ial transfers that are based on

it are problematic, not least because of the historic opposition to them by

Quebec governments supported by social r ights advocates in that prov-

ince.3 One can im agine alternatives, but these would involve either a ma-

jor constitutional change that recognizes the multinational character of

the country (the preferred option of the author of this chapter) or an un-

precedented degree of cooperation of the provinces to create the mechan-

isms to hold themselves accountable for social rights.4 As neit her of these

2 Canada Health Act, RSC 1985, c C-6, ss 7–12 .

3 For a comprehensive summa ry, see Quebec, Secréta riat aux af‌fair es intergouver-

nementales ca nadiennes, “Quebec’s Hist orical Position on the Federa l Spending

Power 1944–1998” (1998), online: S ecrétariat au x af‌faires intergouver nementales

canadiennes www.saic.gouv.qc.ca.

4 The author’s views on the di lemmas of Canad ian federalism ar e elaborated in other

publications. S ee Barbara Cameron, “ The Social Union , Executive Power and Socia l

Rights” (2004) 13 Can adian Woman Studies 49; B arbara Cameron, “Feder alism and

Social Repro duction” in Kate Bezans on & Meg Luxton, eds, Social Reproduction:

Feminist Political Economy Challenges Neo-Liberalism (Montreal and Ki ngston: McGill

Queen’s University Pres s, 2006) 45; Barbara Ca meron, “Accounting for Rights and

Money in Canad a’s Social Union” in Susan Boyd et a l, eds, Poverty: Rights , Social

Citizenship and Leg al Activism (Vancouver: UBC P ress, 2007) 162; Barbara Ca meron,

“Harper, Quebe c and Canadian Fede ralism” in Teresa Healy, ed, The Harp er Record

(Ottawa: Ca nadian Centre for Policy A lternatives, 2008) 419; B arbara Cameron,

“Political Wil l, Child Care, and C anadian Federa lism” (Spring 2009) Our Sc hools, Our-

selves 129.