|
"The Quality of Public Service in the
Canada of Today and Tomorrow"
Notes for an address to the
Institute of Public Administration of Canada
(National Conference - IPAC 96)
Victoria, British Columbia
August 28, 1996
As a member of your association since working on my Master's degree, I have had
the honour of publishing four articles in the journal Canadian Public
Administration. I have prepared presentations for your national conferences, but
have not had the pleasure of attending in person, because I was never able to
come up with the necessary funding. The presentations were therefore given by my
colleagues, James Iain Gow of the Université de Montréal and Jacques Bourgault
of the Université du Québec à Montréal.
Who knows, perhaps one of my subliminal motivations for entering politics was
to get an invitation to come here as your guest, and thus have the pleasure of
speaking face-to-face with my colleagues in the field of public administration!
That's why I'm so happy to finally be able to meet with you, particularly
here in Victoria, the picturesque capital of British Columbia.
I am especially pleased to be addressing an audience of public administrators
and public administration specialists, because I strongly believe that public
institutions play an important role in helping societies to work effectively;
that's true today, and it will be just as true in the next century.
There is a tendency to believe that public institutions count for less and
less, and that the markets are all-powerful. I am convinced that is not true. To
give you a concrete example, national borders still matter a great deal, despite
international market forces. Belonging to a single country greatly facilitates
trade and the functioning of markets. That was true yesterday and will still be
true tomorrow, despite the trend toward market globalization.
In that regard, I will cite the study by John Helliwell of the University of
British Columbia, who asked Canadians the following question: After adjusting
the effect of size and distance, do you think Canada's provinces trade more with
one another than with the U.S. states, or less? And by how much? A fair number
of people seemed to think the volume of trade was about the same, and many felt
that the provinces traded more with the U.S. than with one another.
And yet, the study in question demonstrates that in 1990 -- the latest
available data -- after adjusting the effect of size and distance, Canadian
provinces trade about 20 times as much with each other as with U.S. states. The
effects of Free Trade and NAFTA may have slightly reduced the difference, but
the fact remains: the Canadian political union greatly increases the degree of
integration within the Canadian economic union.
Why are borders still so important in a global marketplace? Because within a
country, we share common public institutions: an integrated banking system, a
single currency, a common legal system, and well-established relations among the
provinces, companies and people. And we have something called national
solidarity. The Canadian common market works in large part thanks to our common
political and social union.
Personally, I have chosen to study public administration as a political
science professor because to understand political theory and more global issues,
you first have to understand the state. The state is not an abstract notion, it
is a set of institutions, of people, flesh and blood, thinking and working, and
you have to understand them and know them. My model is Alexis de Tocqueville,
who was both a great free thinker and a great public servant.
I'd like to talk about the public institutions we share that embody our
federalism. It couldn't be a more appropriate topic following the Annual
Premiers' Conference in Jasper, at which our public institutions were discussed
at length. The premiers have done a remarkable job in pursuing the initiatives
launched by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in the Speech from the Throne in
February and during the First Ministers' Meeting in June.
The premiers have asked the right questions, namely maintaining and improving
the quality of services that people receive from their governments, especially
in the fields of health and social services. We want to work with the provinces
to find the right answers.
And I know that you will help us to find those answers, because public
service lies at the heart of your expertise and your experience. It doesn't
matter if the solutions you propose are controversial or open to criticism; what
is important is that they provide food for thought. In that sense, I would
reiterate what Premier Harris has said of the work of Professor Tom Courchene,
our colleague from Queen's University, and I quote: "I think it is a very
sound intellectual piece that will provoke discussion over the next year."
What Courchene, Harris, Chrétien, Klein, Clark, and all of us are seeking is
better service to the people, a value which must be our guide. It is the key to
improving our federation and keeping it united.
My presentation today has three components. First, I want to explain the
perspective from which I believe one can best understand the nature of Canadian
federalism. Second, in a manner consistent with this perspective, I want to
diagnose the state of our federation. Third, I want to propose some possible
ways to improve and strengthen our federation.
Diagnosis
Too often, our federal-provincial debates focus on symbolic abstractions, not
daily realities for citizens. I want to suggest that the best perspective for
dealing with issues of national unity is a focus on providing service to people.
Public service must be our watchword. If all Canadians were focused on the
benefits of the public services we enjoy because of this federation, I am sure
that nobody would be discussing breaking it up.
Providing effective public services means recognizing certain basic
principles for government action, and often requires balancing competing values
with each other. Let me discuss two balances governments must work towards: the
balance between recognizing equality and diversity, and the balance between
solidarity and subsidiarity.
Let's consider some examples. The federal government makes equalization
payments to some provinces and not to others. This does not make the provinces
unequal: instead it assures that all citizens have comparable public services no
matter where they live in Canada.
When the federal government works with the B.C. government to assist coastal
communities and laid-off fishers because of falling salmon stocks, it does not
necessarily follow the same pattern that is used to compensate Saskatchewan
farmers in the event of a bad harvest, because the contexts are different.
Governments must recognize that all citizens are equal, but then respond to a
diversity of needs and circumstances.
Equality of treatment does not mean uniformity of treatment. Public service
falls to mediocrity when equality is confused with uniformity. We wouldn't want
our hospital beds to be designed by Procrustes!
This is the same principle that underlies the controversial issue of
recognizing Quebec's linguistic and cultural difference as a fundamental
characteristic of Canada. It responds to a unique need and circumstance, without
undermining the equality of provinces or of citizens.
Another important balance is the one between the principles of solidarity and
subsidiarity. Solidarity, the sense of common good and compassion for our fellow
citizens, allows us to act together, in common, to pool our strengths.
Subsidiarity, the principle of local autonomy and self-government, allows us
to build on local strengths, on adapting to the needs of each region and each
province of the country.
Government must balance these competing principles -- equality and diversity,
solidarity and subsidiarity -- if we are to be effective in providing the best
possible public services to citizens.
It is too easy to lose sight of this balance of principles, and the focus on
the provision of services, and to start to look at federal-provincial relations
as a zero-sum game. Concentration or devolution of government power is often
looked at not from the point of view of will it benefit the user of services,
the citizen, but whether it is a "win" or "loss" for one
level of government.
A pitfall to avoid would be to lose sight of the value of public service and
consider how our federation works only in terms of a power struggle. I am sure
you have read, as I have, many articles that wax eloquent about the division of
federal and provincial responsibilities only in terms of who gets what, without
ever devoting one paragraph, one sentence, one line to the aspect of public
service. And yet, it is citizens' health, safety and welfare that are at stake.
In Quebec, for example, too many thinkers and politicians side with the
Government of Quebec and rashly equate any increase in its powers with the
interests of Quebecers. They let compliance with the so-called traditional
demands of Quebec monopolize their thinking on the issue of the division of
roles between Ottawa and Quebec City. They completely lose sight of the value of
public service.
The famous "traditional demands" are an obligatory reference, an
imperative, a conditioned reflex that takes the place of reasoning. Anyone who
dares take away from those "traditional demands" by suggesting a less
restricted role for Ottawa is too often accused of having a paternalistic,
arrogant and contemptuous attitude toward Quebecers.
I have always deplored that way of thinking. The truth, in my opinion, is
that the federal government is also the government of Quebecers, who bring to it
their culture and their talents. Their federal government can only serve them
well by exercising its legitimate responsibilities.
There is provincialist bias in other provinces as well, but there is also
another error, a misplaced kind of Canadian nationalism which in this case is
just a knee-jerk in favour of federal power. It equates Canada's interests with
increased responsibilities for the federal government and calls on it to be
active in every field. Without an omnipresent federal government, it is thought,
the Canadian identity would be threatened and the country would disintegrate.
I believe, on the contrary, that the fact that we are a federation, and that
Newfoundlanders and British Columbians can have different ways of being
Canadian, is one of Canada's strengths. By letting each province come up with
solutions adapted to its needs, we make Canada greater. We all know how
Saskatchewan inspired all of Canada through its efforts in establishing
Medicare.
It is not a question of creating ten self-centred republics, or confusing a
strong Canada with an omnipotent federal government, but of striking the right
balance between our equality and our diversity, between solidarity and
subsidiarity. And if any country needs such a balance, it is Canada, because of
its enormous territory and diverse society.
The Shape of the Federation
According to the principles I have outlined, can we say that our federation
works well in terms of service to the public? I have spoken a great deal about
this in other speeches, so I'll just touch on it briefly here.
You know the socio-economic and human indicators that show that Canada is a
success. Of course we have problems; we mustn't pretend that we don't.
Nevertheless, we stack up pretty well against other industrialized countries.
Year after year, the UN ranks Canada number one in terms of quality of life; and
has also ranked us number five among the industrialized countries in terms of
per-capita income; Canada also had the second highest rate of economic growth
among G-7 countries between 1960 and 1990; and, for the past three years, we've
had the second lowest rate of inflation of all G-7 countries.
So, Canada is a country that compares relatively well to our fellow members
of the club of rich countries, but we still need to do better. There is too much
unemployment, too much poverty, especially for our children. We must consider it
a shame that as one of the wealthiest countries overall we lag behind most of
the OECD with respect to child poverty.
To improve Canada, we don't have to criticize its basic foundations, but to
build on its strengths. Being a federation is one of those strengths, because
federations compete well with unitary countries. It's no accident that four of
the five richest countries in the world -- Canada, the United States, Germany
and Switzerland -- are federations. It's precisely because federations are
well-positioned to strike a balance between solidarity and subsidiarity that
they do so well.
The Canadian balance consists of both a strong subsidiarity-- our federation
is the most decentralized in the world, along with Switzerland -- and a strong
solidarity: Canada is a very generous federation. No other federal system has an
equalization mechanism as developed as ours, or a constitutionally guaranteed
right of comparable services for all citizens, no matter where they live.
To improve our federation, we must build on that balance. And that brings me
to the third part of my speech: we know what shape we're in, so now let's find
ways to improve things.
This is where the initiatives come into play that were proposed in the Speech
from the Throne in February and discussed at the First Ministers' Meeting in
June, as well as at the Premiers' Conference in Jasper from August 21 to 23.
To show you how the federal government sees that change, I'll talk only about
a few key issues: manpower training, health, forests, and fisheries, since we
have the honour of being in British Columbia.
I'll conclude after that, because I'm sure I'll have run out of time by then,
but I could give you many other examples as well.
Manpower Training
Let's start with manpower training. It's an important sector, because
specialists tell us that countries such as Canada cannot maintain their
competitive advantage if they don't have a highly skilled labour force. There
are now so many countries offering cheap labour that, if we wish to remain
competitive while paying the wages our labour force demands, that labour force
must be very skilled indeed.
Historically, the federal government entered this field for legitimate
reasons. The federal government is constitutionally responsible for Unemployment
Insurance, and introduced programs to help get workers out of the cycle of
unemployment. Yet some of these programs were similar to vocational training
programs offered by the provinces under their responsibility for education. Now
the government has acted to eliminate any conflict or overlap.
We are not the only ones with that problem, however. Manpower training is an
area that governments were neglecting, and then suddenly all wanted to get into,
which gave the impression of blundering and overlap. For example, France now has
some 2,300 different employment assistance measures. That plethora of programs
apparently stems from cities, departments, regions and the central government
all implementing their own measures without paying much attention to what the
others are already doing.
Here in Canada, rather than not reacting, we're going to build on those
things that make us strong, by giving the provinces clear responsibilities in
this field, but without breaking Canadian solidarity. We want to have good job
training programs throughout the country, and we want them to be complementary.
Control by the provinces must not hinder labour mobility, because that would
considerably damage our socio-economic union and our collective ability to take
action.
What my colleague Doug Young, the Minister of Human Resources, is negotiating
with the provinces is a general framework giving the provinces responsibility
for active employment measures and manpower training; the federal government
will act only where responsibilities are clearly pan-Canadian or multilateral in
scope.
Let's take one example. If the Atlantic groundfish disappears, affecting five
provinces, those provinces cannot act effectively in isolation. For multilateral
problems of that kind, the relevance of federal intervention is obvious.
The federal government must also ensure that all provinces have access to
equitable funding in accordance with their needs. That funding comes from the
Employment Insurance Fund, which is under federal responsibility.
The negotiating framework is flexible, and gives those provinces that want it
maximum autonomy. The others that opt for maintaining the federal role in active
employment measures will be able to count on federal support. Here again,
equality does not mean uniformity.
Health
Now let's look at health, social services, and national standards, the main
topics of discussion in Jasper from August 21 to 23.
Let's begin by debunking some myths and exaggerations. I do not believe that
the Canada Health Act is the soul of Canada. Our federation has existed since
1867, whereas the CHA as we know it was passed only in 1984.
I do believe, however, that the health system Canadians have built helps to
give them a level of well-being and a life expectancy that are almost unequalled
in the world. As well, Canadians can be proud of having developed a social
safety net comparable to what is enjoyed by Europeans, even though, here in
North America, our giant southern neighbour has a very different social
perspective.
The Canadian system of health and social protection is based on strong
subsidiarity: the provinces manage and deliver care and services. It is also
based on strong solidarity among all Canadians. The federal government
contributes to that solidarity by transferring funding to the provinces,
provided that they respect certain moral principles on which there is consensus
in Canada.
Those principles are few in number and in no way constitute a straitjacket.
Moreover, they have been made more flexible with the recent implementation of
the Canada Health and Social Transfer. Those principles are as follows:
universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and public
administration, with regard to health; and no residency requirements for social
assistance.
Those principles correspond to a social imperative: the absence of federal
transfers conditional upon compliance with those principles could lead to a
"race to the bottom" type of Americanization of our health system and
threaten Canadians' constitutional right to comparable services throughout the
country.
But those principles also reflect economic concerns. A private,
American-style health system places tremendous costs on businesses, making them
less competitive. In fact, U.S. car makers spend more on health insurance than
they do on steel. It is no accident that Canada, which represents 6.8 per cent
of the North American automobile market, generates 15.8 per cent of automobile
production.
If Canada had ten very unequal health systems, and a patchwork,
compartmentalized system of social protection, labour mobility would be
adversely affected. The social union and the economic union reinforce each
other. And one of the merits of the Courchene report is that it demonstrated
that fact again so eloquently.
Incidentally, federal intervention in the health sector entails minimal
administrative costs, contrary to what is too often heard. There is a legend
that Health Canada employs 8,000 people whose only task is to monitor the
provinces and duplicate their activities. In point of fact, Health Canada has
only 6,400 employees in all for the 1996-1997 fiscal year. So, how many of them
do you think are responsible for enforcing the Canada Health Act?
Do I hear 6,000? 3,000? 1,000? 500? 100? Not even close! The actual figure,
ladies and gentlemen, is 23: not 8,000!
The rest of Health Canada's employees deal with responsibilities that
logically fall under federal jurisdiction, such as Aboriginal health services,
drug regulation, and prevention of epidemics. After all, it would make no sense
to require drug companies to have the results of their clinical trials approved
by 10 governments!
It is also noteworthy that this federal intervention is completely
constitutional. The division of responsibilities in the Constitution refers to
legislative power, not spending power. Federal spending power within
jurisdictions of member states exists in all federations. It is considered a
prerequisite for flexibility. There is only one federation where spending power
is subject to the approval of the majority of member states, and that is ours,
ever since the commitment made to that effect in the Speech from the Throne in
February. The Government of Canada thus made an important move toward more
harmonious, consensus-driven relations between the federal government and the
provinces.
We realize that the area of health care has become a field of
federal-provincial conflict. It is understandable, as the federal government for
fiscal reasons has had to reduce its contribution to health care, that provinces
feel they should have more flexibility in the design and implementation of our
national health care system. The federal government has used the route of
financially penalizing provinces that violate the five principles only rarely
and reluctantly, but we recognize that there is a desire for more consensus in
the way the principles of the Canada Health Act are enforced.
The federal government fully supports examining more consensus-driven,
effective mechanisms, together with the provinces. That's why a joint
federal-provincial committee will be struck to that effect, which will be
co-chaired by Minister Doug Young and an Alberta minister representing the
provinces.
Forests
I'm sure you'll recall that the Government of Canada is committed to
withdrawing from what have become known as "the five sisters":
forestry and mining development; tourism; social housing; and recreation. Some
people have actually claimed that those sectors are unimportant, that they are
only minor areas. I can't believe they could say such a thing. Do they really
think that forestry and mining, for example, are not important to the Canadian
economy and the well-being of Canadians?
Let's look at forestry, since we're in British Columbia. Canada's forests
sustain an industry worth $44 billion a year, accounting for 25% of all
manufacturing investment and more than 750,000 direct and indirect jobs.
Forest products form the lion's share of Canada's net trade balance. No
province is in a better position to attest to that than British Columbia, where
forestry accounts for 62% of the province's manufacturing industry and 60% of
its total exports.
Forestry is a provincial jurisdiction under the Constitution. And that's a
good thing, because the provinces are closer to the resources, and thus are in a
better position to exercise that responsibility.
Contrary to a widespread myth, the Government of Canada has never gotten
involved in the area of forestry development by encroaching on provincial
jurisdiction. Its involvement has taken the form of joint programs. And
experience showed that it was better not to renew those programs, because they
generated confusion.
The federal government has thus made a commitment not to act in areas where
provincial programs exist. It needs to retain only those responsibilities that
are logical to do nationally, with respect to international trade and the
environment.
On the research and development side, it is giving people and companies in
all provinces access to a unique database and a world-renowned expertise, thus
yielding substantial economies of scale, while avoiding overlap and duplication.
No one who is properly informed is challenging those responsibilities, since a
coordinated national effort is obviously needed in those areas.
Let me give you an example of the type of research the federal government is
conducting in the forestry sector. While visiting a forestry centre in Quebec
City, a researcher explained to me the problem of spruce bud moths, which are
destroying our forests from Manitoba to New Brunswick. The spruce bud moths
don't face any interprovincial trade barriers, and they probably haven't read
the Constitution. I asked the researcher how many colleagues he had working on
this problem, and he answered: "No more than about 20 researchers for all
of Canada".
Those cutting-edge researchers need to talk to one another, to work together
and consult one another, without having to go through a lot of red tape. It's
very desirable for that critical mass to remain together, within a single
system. The federal government thus has a clear role to play, which everyone can
appreciate.
Fisheries
Of course, I can't come to British Columbia and not talk about fisheries. As
you know, the Constitution gives the federal government jurisdiction over
"sea coast and inland fisheries". It's the same for most federations.
In practice, however, the Government of Canada has delegated the better part
of management to the provinces for inland fisheries where there are no
complicating factors such as migratory species or ongoing international
negotiations. Even the coastal provinces are involved in fishery management,
playing an important role with regard to habitat and regulations on urban
development and forestry practices. They also participate in an advisory
capacity on numerous allocation and international advisory boards.
It obviously makes sense that the provinces play such an active role,
considering how important fisheries and the processing industry are to local
economies. However, a clarification of roles is required today because of
emerging changes linked to the modernization of the fisheries such as increased
capacity, environmental problems, and increasingly complex international
relations.
That's why we've agreed with the Government of British Columbia to proceed
with a bilateral review of federal and provincial roles and responsibilities in
managing the Pacific salmon fishery, a resource that is crucial to this
province. Mr. Mifflin and his colleague Mr. Evans are working to negotiate this
new and promising initiative. I understand that even Premier Clark is now
smiling, which is good news for the federal minister of intergovernmental
affairs!
Conclusion
I've outlined how the Government of Canada plans to change our federation so
as to improve services to citizens and inspire them to take on together, within
a united Canada, the tremendous challenges of the 21st century.
We need your insight, as public administrators and specialists in public
administration. Canada's future hinges on an objective assessment of reality,
and on good decisions to improve that reality.
That is how we will ensure that our country continues to be one of the most
admired in the world for the opportunities it gives its citizens.
Check against delivery.
|
