The interprovincial cooperation model has recently been proposed as a new model of federalism.16 This model suggests that Ottawa return social programs to the provinces by providing unconditional funding. The provinces would then enter into agreements among themselves to maintain standards. There is no guarantee that such agreements would be concluded, but it has been argued that Canadians` commitment to these programs would ensure that this aspect of the model would be implemented.16 There are also concerns about the likelihood of provincial cooperation without federal leadership.17 The Framework Agreement and the Health Accord can be seen as support for a „national“ health care system. with a reaffirmation of the national standards and principles of Canada`s Public Health Act. The main advantage of a movement with a more cooperative relationship is the potential to break the deadlocks that have existed between federal and provincial leaders in the development of new health initiatives. The first major test of the Framework Agreement and the Health Agreement will be the development of national pharmacare and homecare initiatives. To date, the development of these programs has been hampered by provincial distrust of Ottawa in reducing CHST transfers. The provinces are concerned that the federal government will first agree to share the costs in these programs and then reduce their premiums, as it has done for health insurance and hospitalization. The successful development of these programs will demonstrate that the new style of federal provincial interaction has had a constructive influence on health care delivery. The UN Committee`s findings reflect what many in Canada now believe there is a growing social deficit, most dramatically illustrated by the increase in homelessness and the growing number of people without income.
We believe that this is due in part to a vacuum of accountability for the principles of the Charter and international human rights obligations with regard to the rights and dignity of low-income persons and vulnerable groups. ICCS proposes that SUFA be an important factor in the continued lack of accountability mechanisms and that it could have prevented or used serious deficiencies in the design of income security programs. Indeed, the current agreement has failed in all respects in order to protect or improve equal access, service adequacy and fairness in the provision of cost-sharing programmes. The Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA) was an agreement concluded in Canada in 1999 between Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and the provincial and territorial premiers of Canada, with the exception of the Premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard. These are equal opportunities, social programmes, mobility rights and other rights. With respect to all new Canadian initiatives in the areas of health care, post-secondary education, social assistance and social services funded by intergovernmental transfers, whether funded in blocks or covered by costs, the Government of Canada: governments will eliminate, within three years, all policies or practices related to staying with access to post-secondary education, training, health and social services, and Limiting social assistance, unless they can be proven appropriate. and in accordance with the principles of the social union framework. The Social Union framework agreement represents a movement towards a more collaborative federalism in the field of health care. Key features of this new relationship are the requirement to reach a provincial agreement prior to the introduction of new programs and the agreement on a collaborative dispute resolution mechanism. . . .