Beware of 'Subsidarity'

The tensions between levels of government are always acute.

Back in 1978, when I was the minister responsible for booze, and more particularly liquor outlets, I refused several pub applications from New Westminster because they called for too much parking. My reason was that these were supposed to be pubs for the neighbourhood, not watering holes for the city. I was excoriated for using my muscle to thwart the wishes of council which demanded that I give them the authority because they were much closer to the situation or, put another way, were closer to happy photo-ops for the mayor and council when the pub had its gala opening.

Maybe I should have let each municipality have its own way. But as general manager of the Liquor Licensing Authority, Vic Woodland used to say: we're not dealing with soda pop here, minister!"

I held my ground, meaning that New Westminster went for some years before there was a neighbourhood pub.

Defining the term

Around the same time, one or two municipalities in the Lower Mainland permitted all stores to open on Sunday. Mayors and councilors in neighbouring municipalities began screamed like stuck pigs as their merchants' customers lost business to the open Sunday communities. They demanded that the attorney general take responsibility and make a decision. My colleague, Allan Williams, the attorney general, finding it difficult to suppress a smile after what I'd been through, said, in effect "look, you guys are always complaining that big brother in Victoria is doing what you can do better - this is a classic local matter, so you deal with it!"

So, Rafe, what are you driving at? Simple. We're going to get lots of fuddle duddle screams from city hall to Victoria and back if the stories of Premier Campbell's dedication to what's called "subsidiarity" come to fruition.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as "the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level." A noble approach, I'm sure. Perhaps Mr. Campbell is displaying his warm and cuddly side - that's new I can tell you - and is overwhelmed with democratic good wishes for local councils.

I confess to being a skeptic who moves quickly to cynicism when governments claim to be just nice guys with only what's best for the people on their minds. It's an old trick where senior governments pass off the responsibility, and the controversy it generates, to a lower order of government and then neither gives them the money to pay for the policy nor the tax room to raise the money themselves.

The Great Downloader

A good example, of course, is Paul Martin who, in order to balance the federal budget, dramatically cut social services funding transfers to provinces so the budget was balanced on the backs of the disadvantaged, who naturally blamed the provinces who were on the front lines. (What is especially galling is that Martin thereafter became the self-proclaimed saviour of Medicare which went into the dumper for want of cash. When the carnage was complete, the same Martin gave them some money.)

This isn't only a federal habit. The NDP, when in power here, cut back funding to municipalities that wouldn't permit gambling. In short, they financed the municipalities by insisting they import society ills whether they wanted to or not.

The idea behind subsidiarity is a good one. Why wouldn't we applaud the notion that government services are best delivered by the authority closest to home?

Well, a couple of reasons.

Who pays the bureaucrats and if the bureaucrats are to be recruited locally, who trains them?

Who pays for the increased size of local government facilities?

What happens if the local government overspends, whether by reason of unforeseen happenings or, as happened in Britain, deliberately, for political reasons?

As always, the devil is in the details. And those details included the above and much more.

Offloading risk and blame

But there is, for want of a better word, a spiritual aspect to this. Does the government really mean to do good, or is it simply transferring the functions that are always replete with bad news to local politicians who then will take the rap for everything that goes wrong?

Among the suggested areas for transfer are school administration, child welfare, family care and aboriginal communities. Here we have some of the hot button issues that never get much public approval moved from provincial ministers to mayors and councils.

Looking back, the political heat from the Sherry Charlie tragedy case would have been borne locally. (God forbid that I suggest that Premier Campbell has this terrible tragedy - and ghastly political experience - in mind when he rolls his tongue around "subsidiarty.")

To summarize, will the transfer of responsibility bring better results than having the functions at the provincial government level?

Will the responsibilities be accompanied by enough money?

And who will and how will that be determined? Or will municipalities be expected to collect their own tax bucks?

If experience tells us anything, it's that the government won't propose subsidiarty because it will service communities better. Far more likely, it will be because the shift removes the political horror stories, bound to happen, away from the provincial government and inflicts them on mayors and councilors around the province.

Mair's Axiom, perfectly tailored for this situation, is this: lesser politicians should always, without fail, beware of gifts coming from higher levels of governments.

Rafe Mair writes a Monday column for The Tyee. His website is www.rafeonline.com.