Introduction
The first major change we noticed was the significant shift in
governments that began just as our study period was wrapping up. This
transition marked a pivotal moment in the political landscape,
influencing not only governance but also the broader socio-economic
environment. In earlier chapters, we highlighted how newly established
governments that were eager to implement reforms tended to achieve more
significant changes. These governments, often characterized by their
fresh mandates and a strong desire to address pressing issues, were able
to mobilize resources and public support effectively. Their commitment
to reform translated into tangible outcomes, fostering an atmosphere of
optimism and progress.
Conversely, we observed that when governments lacked a commitment to
reform, the level of change was much lower. In such cases, inertia often
prevailed, leading to stagnation in policy development and
implementation. This made us wonder if these patterns would still apply
during a time of widespread government turnover. Would the new
administrations, regardless of their political affiliations, be able to
break free from the cycles of complacency that characterized their
predecessors? Or would they fall into the same traps of indecision and
lack of vision that had hindered progress in the past?
Additionally, the political landscape shifted dramatically during this
period. In most of the provincial areas we examined, center and
center-left political parties were in power for a large part of the time
between 1990 and 2003, which we will refer to as period 1 or "P1." These
parties typically championed social equity, economic reform, and
progressive policies, which resonated with a significant portion of the
electorate. Their governance was marked by attempts to address
inequalities and promote inclusive growth, yet the effectiveness of
these efforts varied widely across different regions and contexts.
As we transitioned into the subsequent period, the emergence of new
political forces and the decline of established parties raised questions
about the sustainability of the reforms initiated during P1. Would the
incoming governments build upon the foundations laid by their
predecessors, or would they dismantle existing frameworks in favor of
new ideologies? The answers to these questions would not only shape the
immediate political climate but also have long-lasting implications for
the trajectory of governance and reform in the years to come. Thus, the
interplay between political commitment, public sentiment, and the
evolving landscape of power became critical focal points for our
analysis as we sought to understand the implications of these shifts for
future governance and reform efforts.
We looked into how the relationships between federal, provincial, and
territorial governments influenced health-care reform both at the
beginning and later on. After the 2006 federal election, the
Conservatives, under Stephen Harper, won 284 seats in Ottawa. Harper's
government took a different approach to the federal government's role in
the federation compared to the previous Liberal governments. While the
Liberals usually focused on centralizing power in their actions and
messages, Harper set himself apart by being more decentralized when it
came to health-care reform. This change opens up new possibilities.