Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
I believe the allegation from the provinces is about the share that has been decreasing, from in the 1970s when the feds basically matches dollar-for-dollar everything the provinces spent.
|
Sure - it was true until the mid 1970s. The 50/50 split was a talking point for trying to get more funding from the feds.
In the 1975 budget, in regard to hospital and medical care insurance, the Minister of Finance, John Turner, said "even after the development of these plans as mature systems, the annual increase in their cost has on average run well ahead of the growth of national income. These cost trends are due in part to the basic nature of health care; but the statutory rigidity of the programs, the lack of national standards, and the open-ended nature of cost-sharing arrangements with the provinces has made it almost impossible to achieve effective cost planning or control. Last year, for example, federal contributions to the provinces in respect of these two programs had to be increased by 19.8 per cent over the previous year."
And from then on it hasn't been 50/50 - but as the news research showed, the federal government has increased its share more in the past 20 years.
More to the point for the upcoming election, Poilievre hasn't committed to continue to fund either pharmacare or the dental funding. His only health committment seems to be to try to get provinces to recognise overseas qualifications faster. There don't seem to be any more federal funds.