Premier's power play.

Every year, provincial premiers get together to discuss common issues; the meeting almost always involves a lot of grumbling about Ottawa

As one of the Fathers of Confederation, you might have thought Sir Oliver Mowat would be a strong central government man. In fact, he was an advocate for provincial rights.

In 1872, Sir Oliver became premier of Ontario. In 1887, he attended the first ever provincial premiers' meeting in Quebec City. The purpose of this gathering was to gang up on Sir John A. Macdonald's Conservative government in Ottawa and rethink the whole idea of Confederation. The meeting, named the Interprovincial Conference, was called by Quebec's premier Honore Mercier. He had just come to power by riding a wave of anti-Ottawa feeling. Quebeckers were angry over the execution of Metis leader Louis Riel two years earlier.

Premier William Fielding of Nova Scotia was there. He had just led his Liberal Party to an election victory on a pledge to withdraw his province from Confederation.

John Norquay, Premier of Manitoba, was there with a list of grievances against Ottawa. He was most upset by the way the federal government protected the monopoly given to the Canadian Pacific Railway. This protection allowed the CPR to gouge Manitobans on freight rates.

The premiers gathered in Quebec's capital in October. One of the things they talked about was something that sounded pretty dull and dry -- The Compact Theory of Confederation. Prime Minister Macdonald saw Canada as a country in which the provincial governments were junior partners with Ottawa. The Compact Theory, which the premiers supported, viewed the country from the other end of the telescope. The premiers said that the central government had been created by the provincial governments. No increase in Ottawa's powers, they said, and no substantial change in the Constitution, was allowed without the unanimous consent of the provincial governments. (A similar view was expressed by some premiers during the constitutional discussions of 1980-81.)

But, about the only thing the premiers did in Quebec City was let off steam. Each premier had his own favourite gripe with Ottawa and, apart from sharing this appetite for fedbashing, there wasn't much unity among them. Mostly, that's the way it's been ever since.

The 1887 conference proved to be useless from the premiers' point of view. Sir John A. Macdonald simply ignored them. After that, the premiers lost their enthusiasm for getting together and bellyaching at Ottawa. Premiers' conferences did not become regular affairs again for another 70 years.

Since the 1960s, the premiers have met each summer. Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson describes these get-togethers as a chance "to enjoy a few festivities together and mull over the great issues of the day, which usually consists of beating up on the federal government."

The premiers also often get into scraps with each other. These leaders have a difficult role to play; they are at the conference to represent their province's interests but they are also there in a national context. If we can go to the world of sports for a comparison -- each premier is the top player in a game for individuals, but Confederation is a team sport. This conflict makes agreements hard to achieve. Just look at interprovincial trade.

The creation of an internal common market was one of the chief motivating forces for Confederation. However, over the years, provinces have carefully erected barriers to the free movement of goods, services, labour, and all the other components of trade. They've done this to protect local industries from competition.

So, Quebec retains rules that keep construction workers from other provinces out. For years it has been next to impossible to buy British Columbian wines in Ontario liquor stores. Provincial governments often subsidize local producers, giving them an unfair advantage over out-of-province companies. Most provincial governments have policies of buying only from local businesses. A 1991 Canadian Manufacturers' Association (CMA) study on the cost of these barriers is often quoted. According to the study, there were roughly 500 barriers to interprovincial trade costing taxpayers about $7 billion a year.

After a lot of pushing and prodding from Ottawa, the provinces signed a deal to reduce internal trade barriers in July 1994. But, the agreement is less than it seems. To start with, alcohol, agriculture, and energy are not part of the deal. The vague wording of the agreement allows plenty of wiggle room for provinces that want to carry on as before. Provinces can continue to refuse to buy goods and services from out-of-province suppliers, even though local products may be more expensive or of lower quality.

Six months after the Internal Trade Agreement was signed, the gloves were off. Several premiers were saying nasty things about Frank McKenna of New Brunswick. Mr. McKenna had signed a deal with United Parcel Service. New Brunswick would spend about $6 million in relocation and training programs to help the courier company move its accounting, customer service, and brokerage departments to the province. The B.C. government was hopping mad and, accused Premier McKenna of secretly working to undermine his neighbours.

B.C.'s Premier Glen Clark got his revenge two years later by playing local politics. At the Premiers' Conference in St. Andrews, New Brunswick in 1997, Mr. Clark is quoted as saying: "British Columbia ferries will always be built in British Columbia as long as I am Premier. I'm not going to allow subsidized shipyards in Quebec or New Brunswick to build B.C. ferries."

The premiers play this way because it's good politics. Mr. Clark knows that only B.C. citizens vote in B.C. provincial elections. He's not going to lose any votes by dumping on New Brunswickers and he'll probably pick up a few by defending B.C.'s interests. Of course, the other premiers are only too well aware that the same rule applies to them.

Usually, however, the premiers don't trash talk each other; at least, not in public. If Alberta has a problem with Nova Scotia, for example, it's dealt with one-on-one rather than around the conference table with the other premiers sitting by. Beating up on the federal government though is another thing. This usually plays well with the voters back home because Ottawa is every taxpayer's favourite boogie man.

So, among themselves, the premiers try to project an atmosphere of unity. If they appear united, their bargaining power with Ottawa will be strengthened. And, that's what premiers' conferences are really about -- wheeling and dealing with the federal government. The agenda for the provinces in the 1990s has included: cutting federal programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction; getting Ottawa to back off from enforcing national standards and allowing the provinces to handle this themselves; and, transferring more money to the provinces.

The 1997 gathering at St. Andrews, New Brunswick was true to the usual formula. At their joint news conference, the premiers complained about Ottawa. One after the other they came to the microphone and attacked Ottawa for its continued cutbacks in transfer payments to the provinces. They echoed Alberta's Ralph Klein who denied Ottawa the right to set national standards in social programs by saying: "It shouldn't be up to the federal government to say, `You have to do it our way or you'll be penalized.' "Then, they demanded a say in how the federal government's surplus will be spent.

(Sounds much the same as 1995 when Robert Sheppard reported: "In the final communique from their annual summer conference, this year in St. John's, [the premiers] blasted the feds -- predictably, but occasionally with wit -- for cutting back on social spending.")

The premiers tend to stick with issues where they can show a common front. When it comes to, more difficult topics, the premiers usually duck. At St. Andrews they made no progress on the Quebec and national unity file, nor on the interprovincial trade barrier file.

(Again, back to Mr. Sheppard reporting on the 1995 meeting: "Left unsaid ... was how the big provinces are hoping to divvy up the new, smaller social-spending pie so that they get a bigger proportion -- their `fair share' -- than they did before.

"Also left unsaid was, how the provinces expect to police each other when it comes to the `national standards' they are now proposing to set for Medicare and other safety-net issues.")

Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson wrote about this process in 1997: "There are ... plenty of genuinely `interprovincial' matters that should command the premiers' attention. These they work at fitfully and without discernible enthusiasm. The items show up on the annual agenda, task forces are created and, if citizens are lucky, [slow] progress is recorded.

"But this interprovincial stuff makes for few headlines and stirs no blood, at least not in the way a good cracking attack on the federal government does."

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. The Globe and Mail blames Ottawa for allowing the barriers to internal trade to exist. In a 1994 editorial it made the following points: "Forget the economic costs: this is an insult to our nationhood, a violation of our most basic rights as citizens. The continued presence of these internal barriers, as destructive of national unity as it is humiliating to national pride, is a living reminder of the inability or unwillingness of the federal government to assume its proper responsibilities in the face of provincial arrogance and pettiness." The newspaper went on to point out that Ottawa can act. It certainly possesses the power. It could say to the provinces that transfer payments are conditional upon removing barriers. If a province still refuses, scholars say Ottawa has the legal power to strike down the barriers. The Constitution gives the federal government sole responsibility for "Trade and Commerce." Discuss what the reaction would be among premiers if Ottawa acted in this way.

2. Are we expecting too much? Through class discussion, agree on what the six most important characteristics a person must have in order to win and hold a provincial premiership. Then discuss whether or not you think these characteristics make for good compromise and consensus-building skills.

RELATED ARTICLE: FACT FILE

According to the Canadian Encyclopedia, in 1982-83 Ottawa and the provinces shared 316 separate government programs.

RELATED ARTICLE: FACT FILE

In the mid-1990s, annual interprovincial trade averaged about $150 billion.