Though it may be a little early to try and pull definitive lessons from the federal election for Ontario’s political parties and interested observers, one takeaway is clear: no matter who wins, the current jurisdictional mayhem between provinces and the federal government is poised to continue.

First, let me start by stating clearly that this trend of inter-jurisdictional hopscotch is not new. Over the past several pre-COVID public policy challenges, the line between provincial and federal, and the reasoning for breaking those lines, has been difficult to discern. In recent pre-COVID memory there’s been the carbon tax, the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, tuition funding debates, paying for the French language university, proper transit funding and more.

Whether the policy area at hand was originally provincial or federal jurisdiction has not mattered much. Both orders of government have taken it upon themselves to have opinions and initiatives in these areas. One notable example of this concerns the autism file. The Ford government openly called for a national strategy in an attempt to pass on a difficult file. Meanwhile, the federal government stepped out of its jurisdiction to fund in-Ontario initiatives to give itself permission to take political shots at the then-unpopular Ford administration in the run-up to the 2019 election. The politics of both positions were obvious, but the jurisdictional authority not so much.

Though there has been continued interference by both sides, jurisdictional boundaries at least kept some order. Then, two major jurisdictionally altering events occurred: COVID-19 and the carbon tax legal challenge.

COVID-19 certainly created an inter-jurisdictional crisis. Artificial divisions of power did not matter nearly as much as governments working together to solve problems and protect citizens. That quickly gave way to finger pointing and jurisdictional run-arounds. Manitoba tried to bypass the federal government and buy its own vaccines. The federal government sent money directly to areas of provincial jurisdiction like municipalities and schools to recover and re-open, respectively. No one really cared about long-term jurisdictional impacts because, let’s face it, we were in the midst of a serious health crisis.

Then, well into the pandemic, the carbon tax ruling at the Supreme Court of Canada happened, upholding inter-jurisdictional meddling by the federal government so long as the issue was important, urgent, and the provinces maintained some flexibility in interpretation. Though the correct legal decision was made, it undoubtedly paved the way for future inter-governmental wrangling.

These two events, as separate and distinct as they may be, combined to create the policy equivalent of telling the federal parties that the provinces were hosting a jurisdictional open bar.

And now, just a few weeks into Canada’s 44th election, it is clear the jurisdictional lines are being re-drawn again. In some cases, such as Erin O’Toole’s promise to increase the Canada Health Transfer by $60 billion over 10 years (page 45), the traditional role of funding but not mandating policy decisions is upheld. However, in long-term care for example, O’Toole promises to set national standards in an area of clear provincial jurisdiction (page 149). To their credit, the federal Tories pledge to work only with those “who want to commit to this important project,” but that is easier said than done when a politically opposed provincial government refuses to help you complete a campaign commitment.

From the Liberal side, the incumbent party has pledged to fund municipalities directly for pro-housing reforms when, as John Michael McGrath correctly writes, that money would go further and make more sense jurisdictionally if it was sent to the provinces. More notably, the Liberals have offered to give $1 billion to provinces that implement vaccine passports despite an electronic passport costing little and being completely up to the provinces. Not to be one-upped on jurisdictional confusion, the Ford administration has responded to this by calling on the feds to implement a vaccine passport system nationwide.

For the federal NDP, dipping its toe in provincial jurisdiction is nothing new. If anything, COVID-19 gave the party more encouragement to do so. Be it national pharmacare, universal dental coverage, or capping and eliminating tuition costs, there has always been a high degree of federal intervention woven throughout the NDP’s platforms.

No matter which federal party you support — with perhaps the exception of the People’s Party of Canada who seem to believe that government jurisdiction stops at the residential fence line — they all, in some way, are set to intervene in provincial jurisdiction. That is, unless of course, we are talking about intervening in Quebec’s jurisdiction.

Perhaps, Quebec can teach the other provinces a lesson. Standing up for your jurisdictional rights does not always have to be a political battle. In fact, if every federal party is poised to meddle, then premiers across Canada would be fighting political battles against their own partisan stripe. That would be a tough spot to be in for any leader, including Ford. Creating clear principles and learning how to stand up for provincial jurisdiction while not abandoning the universally held end goals of better long-term care, more housing starts or a cleaner environment is clearly the better path.

Davidson: Election 44 is set to make jurisdictional boundaries a whole lot messier

Read this for free.