|
"Federalism in
Canada and Russia:
Different contexts, common principles"
Notes for an address
by the Honourable Stéphane Dion
President of the Privy Council and
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
At the Conference
"The Challenges of Federal Governance"
Conference Centre
Ottawa, Ontario
December 16, 2000
Check against delivery
Our two countries, Russia and Canada, have more in common than their vastness,
their nordicity and their love of hockey. They also share, among other
similarities, the fact of being federations. And this common point has become
all the more relevant since your country has evolved toward a pluralist form of
democracy.
It is with pluralist democracy that federalism takes on its full significance.
The federal government finds itself obliged to share power with governments of
different political stripes elected in the constituent entities. Governments
thus set an example for citizens by showing that it is possible for individuals
who do not share the same political beliefs to work together for the common
good. Federalism also pre-supposes the existence of a judicial branch
independent of the political branch, capable of maintaining each order of
government within the responsibilities assigned to it by the Constitution.
Citizens thus gain an additional protection against abuses of power.
Federalism also favours competition of ideas, the plural quest for best
practices, and solidarity in mutual respect, which are all values that are
compatible with and nourish democracy.
So it is no surprise that Russia wants to deepen the reality of federalism. I am
certain that both our countries will learn from each other by their practice of
federalism. The Forum of Federations will help us in this respect, and also
facilitate our contacts with other federations.
Of course, differences of context, which are considerable in some aspects, must
be taken into account. But those very differences can also have a lot to teach
us if we understand them in all their dimensions.
Moreover, I am convinced that there are principles of action that all
federations, above and beyond their contextual differences, must respect if they
are to function effectively.
I'd like to do two things this morning. First of all, I want to outline what I
feel are the major specificities of the Canadian federation. Second, I will
review those universal principles that I believe all federations must respect.
1. The five specificities of
the Canadian federation
I will look at five factors to describe the Canadian federation. They explain
why relations between the two orders of government are of tremendous importance
in my country. To a large extent, Canadian political life is shaped by relations
between the federal and provincial governments.
1.
The strength of our provinces. A first criterion of comparison between
federations is the relative strength of the second order of government. In
Canada, we have strong provinces. Compared with the constitutions of other
federations, Canada's Constitution creates few shared powers, and our provinces
have substantial legislative jurisdictions of their own. The federal government
can initiate few policies on its own without having to work together with the
provinces. Over time, they have also increased their tax revenues in comparison
with those of the federal government.
2.
The small number of our provinces. When there are fewer constituent
entities, it is easier for them to adopt common strategies and maintain a
regular dialogue with the federal government. This is the case in Canada. There
are only ten Canadian provinces - as well as three territories
-- compared with 16 German Länder, 26 Swiss cantons,
50 American states and 89 Russian regions. The relatively small number of
Canadian provinces makes it easier not only to hold frequent interprovincial
or federal-provincial meetings, but also to build interprovincial cohesion.
Moreover, our 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 second chamber . In most federations, the second chamber
provides regional representation. That is the case with your Council of the
Federation. In Canada, however, since our Senate is neither
elected by the population nor appointed by the executive branches or
legislatures of the constituent entities, but appointed instead by the federal
executive branch, it is not in a position to compete with the provincial
governments in terms of regional representation. Relations between the two
orders of government in Canada 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 which is usually able to pass the legislation it proposes. As
a result, intergovernmental relations are conducted between strong governments.
When the Prime Minister of Canada, the ten provincial premiers and the three
territorial leaders sign an agreement, they have the capacity to ensure it is
applied.
5.
The existence of a minority group in the country that constitutes a majority
within one of the constituent entities. There are federations where ethnic,
linguistic or religious minority groups have populations too small in number or
are too widely dispersed to constitute a majority within a constituent entity.
This is the case in Australia and the United States, for example. If African- or
Hispanic-Americans were to constitute a majority in one or more states, the
dynamics of the American federation would undoubtedly be changed. Because once
an ethnic, linguistic or religious group that is a minority in the country forms
a majority within a constituent entity, it tends to exert pressure to ensure
that the entity maintains or increases its level of autonomy. This is a
phenomenon with which you are very familiar in Russia, where many of your
regions, notably the Republics, contain many non-ethnic-Russian populations that
constitute a majority or plurality. In Canada, Francophones
make up 23.3% of the national population, but 81.5% of the population in Quebec.
So it's not surprising that Francophone Quebecers, in addition
to identifying with Canada, also identify themselves strongly with their
province. 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 the vast
majority of other federations.
These are the five factors that I feel fundamentally explain the exceptional
importance of intergovernmental relations in Canada and the vitality with which
we live our federalism.
2. Some universal principles
to respect in each federation
At the International Conference on Federalism in Mont-Tremblant on
October 6, 1999, I proposed 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. As Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I can confirm
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 policies adapted to their situation.
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.
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. 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.
These 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'd like to finish with a story of 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 has pushed its federalist dimension very far. I have proposed five
factors that can explain this phenomenon, as well as seven principles for action
that should help 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 party, region, language, culture
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, an undertaking shared by our
two countries, on which we must build mutually beneficial relations of
solidarity.
|
