Government of Canada, Privy Council Office
Francais Contact Us Help Search Canada Site
What's New Site Map Reference Works Other PCO Sites Home
Subscribe
Archives - Press Room

Archives - Press Room


"Governmental Interdependence in Canada"

Notes for an address by the
the Honourable Stéphane Dion
President of the Privy Council and
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Canadian Study of Parliament Group Conference

Ottawa, Ontario

June 11, 2000

Check against delivery


    

          Federalism may be defined as a system in which two orders of government possess constitutional powers. Each order of government is sovereign within its own legislative sphere, in the sense that the Constitution recognizes it as the only one empowered to legislate in that sphere.

          And yet there are some fields of governmental activity that do not lend themselves well to a watertight distinction of roles and responsibilities between orders of government. Therefore the constitutions of federations generally provide for a number of shared constitutional jurisdictions within which both orders of government are called upon to play a role and to work together.

          In addition, the expansion of the role of governments in the lives of citizens throughout the 20th century has increased the responsibilities of both federal governments and governments of constituent entities, and as a result, their areas of jurisdiction increasingly touch. They have had to learn to work more closely together and to manage these intense interactions.

          The federalism of today is characterized as much by the interdependence of responsibilities as by the division of powers. Governments' ability to work together while respecting each other's spheres of autonomy is a determining factor in the functioning of modern federations.

          However, for a host of reasons, which I will touch on in the first part of my presentation, this dynamic between autonomy and interdependence is experienced to a particularly high degree in Canada. You would be hard pressed to find another federation whose political life is marked as much by its intergovernmental relations.

          I will first describe these factors which place intergovernmental relations at the centre of Canadian political life, and then propose seven principles by which I believe, in federal systems, governments ought to be guided so that their relations best serve the public interest.

1. The land of intergovernmental relations

          To a great extent, Canadian political life is punctuated by federal-provincial meetings. For example, for a number of years now, the political event of the summer has been the annual meeting of provincial and territorial premiers, which is generally held in August. Over a few days, the premiers devote the main part of their meeting to coordinating their strategies so as to exert effective pressure on their federal counterpart.

          This year, for example, the major political issue is the negotiation of a federal-provincial-territorial agreement to improve our health care system. Health will no doubt be the major theme of the premiers' meeting in August. But before that, the federal health Minister and his provincial and territorial counterparts will continue their discussions and, assuming adequate progress, their work will lead to a First Ministers' Meeting in the fall. Health would be a key issue for consideration during that meeting.

          These political events attract a great deal of media coverage. But there are also a host of other, less publicized meetings that have a cumulative effect that shapes our country. Between April 1, 1999, and March 31, 2000, alone, 61 federal-provincial-territorial meetings were held, covering almost all fields of governmental activity: 26 among senior officials, 35 among ministers. And that's not counting the innumerable informal contacts.

          There are five factors, I believe, which explain the great importance that intergovernmental relations have in Canada. Those factors give them a unique character among world federations.

          1. The strength of our provinces. In Canada, both orders of government are strong enough in their respective spheres that they cannot act in isolation. Compared to the constitutions of other federations, Canada's constitution creates few shared powers, and our provinces have broad legislative jurisdictions of their own. Over time, they have also increased their tax revenues in comparison with those of the federal government. The latter does not make substantial use of its spending power, and attaches few conditions to it. Federal transfers to the provinces are much less conditional today than they were in the 1960s and 1970s. This is very clear in the fields of health and social assistance, for example. So the federal government can initiate few policies on its own without having to work together with the provinces.

          2. The small number of our provinces. There are relatively few provinces in Canada, a fact which facilitates intergovernmental contacts. There are only ten Canadian provinces, compared with 16 German Länder, 26 Swiss cantons and 50 American states. The relatively small number of Canadian provinces not only makes it easier to hold frequent interprovincial or federal-provincial meetings, but also to build interprovincial cohesion. Moreover, the largest provinces, Ontario and Quebec, but also British Columbia and Alberta, have political and administrative structures of appreciable size in relation to that of the federal government. They are major actors in our political system.

          3. Our type of senate. Compared with other senates, Canada's, which is not elected, is in less of a position to compete with the provincial governments in terms of regional representation. If we compare to the United States for example, the competition that is observed there between the two senators and the governor of a given state has no equivalent in our Canadian political system. Furthermore, because our senators are appointed by the federal executive branch, and not by the executive branches or the legislatures of the constituent entities, intergovernmental relations in Canada thus take place between executive branches that are clearly distinct and that are not institutionally linked through Parliament.

          4. The strength of the executive branch in relation to the legislative branch. Among the 24 existing federations, only four combine a parliamentary system and a simple majority vote electoral system: Canada, India, Malaysia and St. Kitts and Nevis. This combination tends to produce governments, at both the federal and provincial levels, that are formed by a single party that is usually able to pass the legislation it proposes. As a result, intergovernmental relations are conducted between strong governments. In comparison, federations that combine a presidential system and/or a proportional representation system tend to have intergovernmental relations that are more diffused and that are strongly defined by the balance between the executive and the legislative branches and by party coalitions.

          5. The existence of a minority group that constitutes a majority within one of the constituent entities. In addition to their belonging to Canada, Francophone Quebecers also identify themselves strongly with their province, where they make up 81.5% of the population. The Government of Quebec plays a key role in promoting provincial autonomy in Canada. Moreover, the presence in Quebec of a separatist party in power or in opposition over the last three decades has often imparted an existential nature to intergovernmental relations that is unknown in other federations.

          These are the five factors that I feel fundamentally explain the exceptional importance of intergovernmental relations in Canada. No other federation combines all five. The United States, one of the longest standing federations, does not have any of these characteristics. Australia, for its part, has two: a small number of constituent entities (there are only six states) and the relative strength of the executive branch in relation to the legislative branch. But the Australian states have substantially fewer powers and autonomous means than do the Canadian provinces; the Australian senate is elected; and Australia does not have a national minority that constitutes a majority within one of its states.

2. Some principles to observe for productive intergovernmental relations

          Precisely because intergovernmental relations are of such importance, it is essential that they serve the general interest well. To this end, I proposed, at the international conference on federalism in Mont-Tremblant on October 6, 1999, seven fundamental principles which, if observed, should guide intergovernmental relations for the better. I must emphasize that I see these seven principles as a whole, and that respecting one of them must not be used as a pretext for ignoring the others.

          1. The Constitution must be respected. We must do away with the all-too-convenient excuse that a given governmental initiative responds to a need that is too urgent to be obstructed by issues of "jurisdiction." Infringement of legislative jurisdiction creates confusion which damages the quality of public policy.

          2. Cooperation is essential. More often that not, it is necessary to cooperate, because government jurisdictions touch on each other in almost all sectors of activity. I can confirm, from my position as Minister, that there are few policies that the Canadian government can implement alone, without the active cooperation of the provinces.

          3. Governments' ability to act must be preserved. We must not let our quest for cooperation lead us to create a federation where no government can move without the permission of the others. The capacity for initiative and innovation must be preserved within each autonomous sphere of activity. We must not fall into what the Europeans call the "joint decision trap."

          4. The federation must be flexible. The quest for joint action must take into account the diversity of the country; it must reconcile the pursuit of common objectives and citizens' desire for government services of comparable quality throughout the country with the constituent entities' capacity to innovate and establish a healthy emulation among themselves.

          5. The federation must be fair. Federations must encourage redistribution among their constituent entities, so that even the less wealthy among them are able to provide their citizens with services of acceptable quality. In Canada, this has been a constitutional principle since 1982. We call it equalization. In Europe, some federations prefer to talk of a solidarity fund. Perhaps we should use the same designation in Canada, because that is what it really is: a national solidarity fund.

          6. The exchange of information is essential. Unilateralism and surprises must be avoided. Governments must be notified in advance of any new initiatives that could have a significant impact on their activities. Exchanging information also allows governments to compare their performance, assess their respective initiatives and establish among themselves a healthy emulation.

          7. The public must be aware of the respective contributions of the different governments. That's right, the famous visibility. While it would be very bad if visibility were the main motivation driving governments' actions, citizens have the right to know what their governments are there for. They must be able to assess the performance of each one; it is a question of transparency. And governments will agree more readily to work together if they have the assurance that they will receive the credit for their initiatives.

          Those are principles which I believe could guide intergovernmental relations within federations. In any event, I feel that they are certainly important in Canada. I am not saying that we Canadians fully succeed in respecting these principles. I am saying we must try our best.

          Certainly, this is not achieved without some difficulty. A degree of creative tension is inherent in the federal system. The perspective of the federal government is not the same as that of the constituent entities. The federal government, representing all the voters, is naturally concerned with principle 2: the need for cooperation, for pooling resources and talents to achieve national objectives. The governments of constituent entities are mindful of principles 3 and 4: their sphere of autonomy and their capacity for initiative and innovation. For intergovernmental relations to yield positive results, each government must accept the merits of the others' views and everybody must respect the other principles: fairness, exchange of information, transparency and respect for the Constitution.

Conclusion

          I'm sure you all know the story of the four schoolchildren who had to write an essay on elephants. The British student entitled his essay: "Elephants and Empire." The French student entitled hers: "Elephants in Love." The American student wrote about "How to Make Bigger and Stronger Elephants." And the Canadian student chose as a title: "Elephants: Federal or Provincial Jurisdiction?"

          Yes, Canada does seem to me to be the land of intergovernmental relations. I have proposed five factors that can explain this phenomenon, as well as seven principles for action that should enable us to draw on the best of it.

          The stakes are considerable, because federalism is more than just an effective method of governance. It is also an apprenticeship in negotiation, the art of conflict resolution, an inevitable dimension of life in society. In a federation, governments are well positioned to set an example for their citizens, by proving that it is possible to work together for the good of the whole country, while respecting differences of parties, regions, languages, cultures or ethnic mix. Federalism is proof that diversity is not a problem, but rather a strength for a country. Of course, intergovernmental relations within a federation are often highly complex. But we as practitioners must never forget that beyond that necessary complexity, which is our daily bread, federalism is, first and foremost, a profoundly human undertaking.

 

  Printer-Friendly Version
Last Modified: 2000-06-11  Important Notices