During the christmas break for Parliament, we witnessed two major developments in the ongoing power struggle between Ottawa and the provinces — another failed attempt to set up a national securities regulator and the feds taking the first steps in walking away from renewing the national health-care policy.

The Harper government now has the distinction of being slapped down by the Supreme Court of Canada for encroaching into provincial jurisdiction in the securities regulator case and then being attacked by the provinces (mostly from Eastern Canada) for abandoning its national responsibilities on health care.

The pundits are noticing a pattern, a sort of federalism of convenience. When it suits Ottawa’s purpose, the feds are prepared to risk an incursion into provincial jurisdiction. But when an issue such as health care doesn’t fit Ottawa’s priorities, the feds will simply send transfer payments and leave the provinces to sort out their own problems.

At the moment, Ottawa seems to be thinking that its roles include the management of the national economy, stern copyright protection, maintaining a strong military and keeping dangerous criminals off our streets despite the steadily falling crime rate.

Regarding health care, the feds seem to have decided that it is the provinces’ problem to solve. So, there will be no renewal of the 10-year health accord with the provinces when it expires in 2014, in keeping with the model of a smaller federal government.

Governments in the 21st century are many-headed Hydras, of course, with plenty of overlapping jurisdictions. Tracking federal and provincial policies, and where they are headed, is likely to be very challenging — at least until the 2015 election.

Take the issue of education. Nominally, that is a provincial responsibility — with Ottawa, of course, writing cheques to help pay for it.

But Canada is a growing economy with a skills shortage. Which is why Ottawa had ponied up $800 million in 2008-09 to beef up post-secondary education in the provinces.

Federal funding of post secondary education is governed by the Canada Social Transfer agreement, which also expires in 2014. Will Ottawa simply tell the provinces it has only so much to provide for colleges and universities, and that policy is the provinces’ problem, as the feds just did on health?

Or, because quality in education is rather important in a knowledge economy, will the CST be renewed, either in its current form or with alterations to fit Ottawa’s national economic priorities?

Creation of a smaller federal presence in Canadians’ lives may turn out to be as elusive for the Harper government as a reformed Senate.

As for the SCC’s ruling on national securities regulation, the fallout from that decision could go far beyond the capital markets. While the SCC has left the door open for yet another attempt to establish a national regulator, the court seems to be telling Ottawa to be more careful in stepping around day-to-day regulation covered by provincial jurisdiction. In other words: no matter how much money is involved, securities fall within the property and civil rights jurisdiction of the provinces and is not related to federal powers of national trade and commerce.

The SCC’s ruling has prompted Michael Geist, the Internet and copyright expert, to wonder about the constitutional future of several of Ottawa’s recent initiatives into intellectual property law, such as the draconian digital-lock provisions in the new copyright law or the anti-spam rules. How much of this new legislative language crosses into the property and civil rights jurisdiction of the provinces?

Worse still for Ottawa, will the SCC’s ruling encourage the provinces to take the feds to court more often? Quebec already has threatened legal action regarding the federal privacy guidelines.

It has long been said that during majority governments, the provincial premiers are the real Opposition for the feds. The SCC’s ruling on the proposed national securities regulator could provide new meaning to that adage. Ottawa has tried, and failed, three times to implement something recommended first by the Rowell-Sirois Commission in 1940 and then by the Porter Commission in 1964. Watch for another attempt after the 2015 election, no matter which party forms the government.  IE