|
"MY PRAXIS OF FEDERALISM"
NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS AT
THE INSTITUTE
OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY
KINGSTON, ONTARIO
MAY 28, 1998
I'm sure you will remember that in the 1970's, every professor, to be popular
with a certain category of student, not only had to be a Marxist, but also had
to have a ‘praxis', that is, to put his or her ideas into practice through
active involvement in a revolutionary party.
And so, in memory of my student days, and in
front of a number of my former professors who are present here today (but who
weren't particularly Marxist!), I've entitled this speech: my praxis of
federalism.
I couldn't have found a better audience to
explore this topic with. Having been a member of your Advisory Council for two
years, and having run up an intellectual debt with a number of you, I know how
much you have both thought about and practised Canadian federalism in various
roles. Each of you has an interesting praxis you could talk about.
A few years ago, my father, Léon Dion, told me
the following story. Having expressed his disagreement with an initiative by
Jean Chrétien, who was then a minister, the latter replied, in the words of
George Bernard Shaw: ‘Those who cannot do, teach!' My father, who held
teaching in the highest esteem, answered back: ‘Those who cannot teach, do!'
I was reminded of that story when I was sworn in
as Minister on January 25, 1996, and saw both of them talking together, in a
very friendly fashion I must say, in the Governor General's drawing room. I
wondered then whether I would succeed in putting into practice what I had taught
about Canadian federalism.
In other words, I wondered whether I would be
able to prove Minister Jean Chrétien wrong, by proving that ‘Those who teach
can also do!' Especially since I would also be proving Prime Minister Jean
Chrétien right, for having put an academic with no direct political experience
in charge of federal-provincial relations, at a time of great uncertainty in
Canadian history.
Federal-provincial relations and the
Canadian unity debate
So, what did I have to say as an academic about
Canadian federalism? First of all, that nothing in this federation justifies
secession; that the arguments in favour of secession are either weak or just
plain wrong; and that it is an outrageous strategy to tell Quebecers, ‘The
sovereignists are pretty much right today, Canada is unacceptable, but give us
the chance to reform it from stem to stern and we'll be able to make it
acceptable tomorrow'.
Second, that changing the federation must be
guided by improving service to the public, and not by a list of traditional
demands. Do you think the Quiet Revolution was achieved through traditional
demands?
I defended those ideas at a time of genuine
constitutional obsession. Without major constitutional change, it was said,
Canada could not respond to the aspirations of Quebecers or Western Canadians,
or succeed in getting out of its financial crisis. ‘Allaire-ism' proposed to
inflate the Quebec government with new responsibilities. This was not intended
to improve public policy, but to give ‘gains' to Quebec federalists, because
of course, shrinking the federal role was a ‘gain'.
I believed that you don't save a country by
relying on such a logic of internal separatism -- especially not when the
country is already, in many ways, a decentralized federation in comparison with
others in the world. Transfers of power cannot allay separatism if they are made
for that purpose alone. Every new transfer would lead Quebecers to withdraw ever
further into their territory, to define themselves by an exclusive
"us", to see other Canadians increasingly only from afar, and to
reject the Canadian government and common Canadian institutions as a threat to
their nation, a foreign body.
And given the lack of support for a special
status for one of Canada's provinces -- a phenomenon that can also be seen in
other comparable federations, such as the U.S., Switzerland, Belgium and Germany
-- the same concessions would have to be offered to the other provinces, to
avoid regional jealousies. This spiral of concessions could lead to a sort of
balkanization. And yet if the federal government refused to grant the other
provinces the same powers as Quebec, it might give rise to a powerful backlash,
from Western Canada and other regions as well, which would inevitably be
interpreted as a rejection of Quebecers. A federation is living on borrowed time
when its only logic for change is to reward separatist blackmail.
I maintained that it was identity, rather than
the division of powers, that is at the source of our unity problem. Francophone
Quebecers want the assurance that their language and culture can flourish with
the support of other Canadians. They want to feel that their language and
culture are seen by other Canadians as an important asset, rather than a burden.
They want the assurance that they can be both Quebecers and Canadians, and that
they don't have to choose between Quebec and Canada.
When I met with people in my riding and elsewhere
in Quebec, my conviction was strengthened that the most fundamental issue is
related to identity, rather than the division of powers. When I ask those who
call for more powers for Quebec to specify which ones they want, they are quite
often unable to come up with an answer.
I told myself that if the defenders of Canadian
federalism don't explain to these citizens just how much Canada is a principle
of sharing, rather than endless constitutional bickering, no rejigging of powers
can win them over to supporting Canadian unity in a lasting way.
Especially not a rejigging ill-conceived in terms
of quality of service to the public, which would create new inconveniences for
these citizens. Because then the separatist leaders would have a field day
showing them how, even with the best will in the world, Canada doesn't work.
This is what we must succeed in doing: showing
that Canada is a principle of caring, a country where Quebecers have the
opportunity to express their culture and their identity, both for themselves and
to better help other Canadians, while accepting their help in turn. In other
words, everyone needs to realize just how much this Canadian sharing is taking
place each and every day, not just during ice storms.
Canada is not an emergency cord to be pulled only
one week every 15 years, just before a referendum vote. There are universal
values tied to the Canadian ideal; we must be able to express them and show how
much Quebec society is a part of this ideal. And at the same time as we express
those values, and highlight the reasons to be strongly attached to Canada, we
also show that breaking that ideal, to which so many people are so deeply
attached, breaking Canadian unity, would be a very sensitive operation. It would
be one for which many precautions would have to be taken: a mutually agreed on,
rather than unilateral, procedure; clarity, rather than confusion; legality,
rather than anarchy.
So there's no contradiction between the so-called
Plans A and B; rather, they are part of the same process of clarifying what
Canada is all about.
Putting federal-provincial relations into
principles
And where does improving the federation fit into
all this? Well, if we succeed in making this federation more harmonious and more
efficient, the improvement in governments' ability to work together will enhance
Canadians' image of their country -- just as putting public finances in order
and revitalizing the economy increased their confidence in Canada.
You know as well as I do that, apart from all of
us here today, the machinery of federal-provincial relations is of interest to
few people in this country; similar disinterest can be seen in other federations
as well. With the possible -- but by no means certain -- exception of the job
training agreements, it would be presumptuous to say that the changes we have
made to this federation in the past two years have had an immediate positive
effect on public opinion.
In fact, things work in the very opposite way: a
series of failed negotiations with the provinces would definitely have sapped
support for Canadian unity. If the federal-provincial negotiations on the
pension plan, environmental harmonization, extending the infrastructure program,
liberalizing internal trade, the constitutional amendments affecting certain
school boards or the national child benefit had all failed, or had generated the
same divisions as the agreement on hepatitis C, there is no doubt that Canadian
unity would be weaker today.
It is very frustrating for all governments to see
how many success stories go almost unnoticed, while a few failures get all the
headlines. It's like the Calgary Declaration, which proceeded apace without any
fuss, and yet a snag in even one province would have produced a great hue and
cry.
The question that specialists like yourselves
need to answer is whether the changes we have made in the past two and a half
years, as well as those we are currently working on with the provinces, will
have long-term benefits in terms of the effectiveness of the federation. Will we
have better social policies, better health policies, better environmental
policies, a more dynamic internal market, a better trained workforce? Will all
these pragmatic changes enable us to draw the greatest potential from the
federal and provincial governments and to improve the synergy between the two
orders of government?
In the latest volume of the State of the
Federation, some of you have judged the trend that is emerging in the Canadian
federation in a rather positive light. The editor of this work, Harvey Lazar,
sees a promising new balance arising, marked by greater cooperation among
governments. Similarly, Robert Howse sees ‘a new way of doing federalism'
which strengthens the feeling of coexistence.
I hope that these academics are right, and I
share their optimism. The main reason for my optimism is that, while working
pragmatically one step at a time, on a case-by-case basis, we have always been
guided by solid principles of action, which we must always strive to respect
more fully. Those principles are as follows:
- 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 stymied by issues of
"jurisdiction." Infringement of jurisdiction creates confusion which
damages the quality of public policy.
- Close cooperation must be established where it
is needed. And it must be done often, because government jurisdictions touch on
each other in almost all sectors. I used to say that my responsibilities
required me to support my colleagues in almost every area but the military. But
ever since the ice storm that hit three provinces, I now have to give a hand to
the Minister of National Defence as well. There are few policies that the
Government can accomplish alone without the active cooperation of the provinces.
It's all very well for the federal government to negotiate wonderful
international agreements on the environment, but they'll get absolutely nowhere
without the provinces' cooperation. And everyone knows that a national home care
policy is just not going to happen without the agreement of the provinces. The
federal government simply does not have the capacity to act alone in this
sector, nor in the vast majority of social policies. That is why the new
Ministerial Council on Social Policy Renewal is an excellent innovation. Through
the Council and its task forces, governments are coordinating their activities
more effectively on issues such as child poverty and programs for youth and
persons with disabilities.
- Governments' ability to act must be preserved.
We mustn't let our quest for cooperation leave us with a federation where no
government can do anything without asking the permission of the ten others, not
to mention the territorial governments and First Nations representatives.
Autonomous spheres of activity are important in our federation; they must not be
needlessly whittled away so that we fall into what the Europeans call the ‘joint
decision trap.' For example, the Environmental Harmonization Accord signed on
January 29, 1998, commits the federal and provincial governments to work
together to harmonize their standards and regulations, while preserving the
ultimate right of each if a consensus is not possible, to make its own laws.
This means that citizens and businesses will normally face a single set of
standards, for example on toxic emissions, and will only have to deal with one
inspector. Another example is the agreement concluded on February 20 by industry
ministers, which will further liberalize government contracting. This agreement
has been approved by all ministers but British Columbia's. Rather than waiting
for unanimity, which is not yet forthcoming, the ministers wisely decided to
proceed with the agreement, hoping that B.C. would join later.
- The federation must be flexible. In striving
for joint action, we must also take into account the diversity of the country.
The provinces have their own specific characteristics and sometimes adopt
differing policies. So, for example, the job training agreements allow the
provinces to choose between a co-management formula with the federal government
or greater autonomy. In the same way, federal funding for the new child benefit
comes with budgetary flexibility that allows the provinces to use the funding in
accordance with their own child and family poverty policies. The objective here
is to reconcile joint action with the provinces' capacity to innovate and
establish a healthy emulation among themselves. This would not be possible if
the federal government tied its assistance to painstakingly detailed national
standards. This federal flexibility is even more necessary in this period of
economic globalization, where each province must be able to choose its
strategies in facing its own expanding external market.
- The federation must be fair. Canada will have
succeeded in bringing down the $62 billion deficit of all its governments in
less than five years. It is extraordinary that this feat has been accomplished
without creating more friction between the federal government and the provinces
or more jealousy among the provinces. Nevertheless, occasions for conflict will
not diminish now that the surpluses around the corner are attracting envious
glances. The Premier of this province is particularly active on that front at
the moment. The federal government is aware of the difficulties the provinces
are having after all these years of cuts: 38% of the new spending initiatives
(that is, additional spending or rescinded cuts) set out in the last Martin
budget will go directly to the provinces.
- We must exchange information. Unilateralism and
upstaging must be avoided. Governments must be notified in advance of any new
initiatives that could have a significant effect on their activities. Exchanging
information also allows governments to compare their performance, assess their
respective initiatives and establish among themselves the healthy emulation I
mentioned earlier.
- 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 our
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's a question of
transparency. And governments will agree more readily to work together if they
have the assurance that credit for their initiatives will not be claimed by
others. I can assure you that my job as Intergovernmental Affairs Minister would
be much easier if I could guarantee my Cabinet colleagues that cooperation with
the provinces will not make the Government of Canada invisible to Canadians. My
provincial counterparts say the same thing about their colleagues. For example,
if the new National Child Benefit Agreement was negotiated successfully, it was
in part due to its guarantee that each government will clearly receive credit
for its own actions and, at the same time, be held accountable for them to
citizens.
Conclusion
These are the main principles guiding us. One
question we must answer is whether to formalize them in frameworks or within new
structures such as the Ministerial Council on Social Policy Renewal. What is
important, however, is that these principles be respected in a way that
increases cooperation between governments and makes it possible to manage
conflicts better. Because those conflicts will always, always be with us. We've
got to stop seeing every single conflict as proof that the country doesn't work.
Incidentally, those conflicts don't always have
negative consequences. One of the advantages of the federative form of
government is that solutions can be found more easily when disagreements take
place out in the open, among constitutional partners, rather than in the ivory
towers of huge centralized bureaucracies that weigh down unitary countries.
The principles I have set out constitute our
praxis of federal-provincial relations. A praxis which, nevertheless, is not at
all revolutionary. There won't be any ‘now or never' ratifications of huge
package deals that will solve everything. Instead, we'll see an approach, à la
Jean Chrétien, step by step, solid and determined.
Check against delivery.
|
