|
"Intergovernmental Relations Within Federations: Contextual Differences and
Universal Principles"
Notes for an address by
the
President of the Privy Council and
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
the Honourable Stéphane Dion
at the International
Conference on Federalism
Mont-Tremblant, Quebec
October 6, 1999
What brings us all together here for three days,
in Canada, in Quebec, in Mont-Tremblant, from every continent and from so many
different countries, is the conviction that we can learn from one another. The
contexts in which we live vary tremendously, but the fact that our
intergovernmental relations take place mainly between constitutional partners
gives us some common ground. It is a shared experience from which we can learn a
great deal.
1. Differences between federations
Different we are, indeed. Professor Watts, in the
study included in your registration package, notes that there are, currently, 24
federations populated by about two billion people or 40% of the world's
population; they encompass about 480 constituent or federated entities. Some of
those federations are among the world's wealthiest countries, while others are
part of the developing world. Some span an entire continent (Russia, Canada) or
bring together immense populations (India), while others are very small in size
(Comoros) or population (Saint Kitts and Nevis). Some are well established
federations (the United States, 1789; Switzerland, 1848; Canada, 1867;
Australia, 1901), while others are just beginning their experience with
federalism.
Our intergovernmental relations take place within
different contexts. Let me outline some of the differences using the Canadian
federation as an example.
- As a parliamentary system and a
first-past-the-post electoral system, the Canadian system tends to produce
governments that are formed by a single party that is usually able to pass
the legislation it proposes, and so 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.
- Another difference between federations is
their varying degree of decentralization. Compared to other federations,
Canada has few concurrent powers and provinces have extensive legislative
powers of their own. As well, over time, provincial fiscal revenues have
increased in relation to those of the federal government. The latter does
not use its spending power very much and when it does applies few
conditions. Federal transfers to the provinces are much less conditional
today than they were during the 1960s and 1970s. This is very clear, for
example, in areas such as health and social assistance. As has been well
stated by the former Premier of Quebec, Mr. Jacques Parizeau, on February
28, 1999: [Translation] "Canadian federalism is about the most
decentralized in the world, along with Switzerland."
- The upper chamber of the Canadian Parliament
is not chosen by the executive branches or the legislatures of the
constituent states. In Canada, intergovernmental relations thus take place
between executive branches that are clearly distinct and that are not
institutionally linked through Parliament.
2. Some principles common to all
federations
There are many other differences between our
federations. During the course of this century, however, a basic tendency has
made them more and more alike: the increase in the role that governments play in
citizens' lives. Everywhere, both the federal government and the governments of
the constituent entities have seen their responsibilities grow, and as a result,
their areas of jurisdiction increasingly touch. They have had to learn to work
more closely together, to manage these intense interactions. In Canada, for
example, between April 1st, 1998 and March 31st, 1999, 70
federal-provincial-territorial meetings were held: 36 among senior bureaucrats,
33 among ministers and one among First Ministers. And this is not counting the
innumerable informal contacts.
But because these interactions take place between
constitutional partners, it seems to me that, no matter what the context, there
are common principles that ought to guide intergovernmental relations in our
federations to ensure that our populations are well served. Let me suggest seven
principles that appear to me to be very important.
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. I can tell you that, from my position as
Minister, 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 leave us with a
federation where no government can act without first having to get permission
from the others. Autonomous spheres of activity, the capacity to innovate,
initiative, all this must be preserved. We must not fall into what the
Europeans call the "joint decision trap."
4. The federation must be flexible. In striving
for joint action, we must take into account the diversity of the country. This
quest for joint action 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 units, so that even the
less wealthy 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's 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. 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.
3. Principles in action: federalism in
practice
There is much to gain from good intergovernmental
relations within a federation. No other system allows us to reconcile common
action and diversity of experience as effectively as does federalism. Certainly,
a central government in a unitary country can more easily choose its policies as
it sees fit, in accordance with a single plan. But it has less to learn from the
diversity of experiences. If it makes a mistake, the whole country makes one.
And the detection of these mistakes takes a long time, since government action
does not lend itself to comparison when there is only one government. A
federation in which the different governments preserve their capacity for
innovation and initiative, while working together to achieve common objectives,
is better able to identify the best policies adapted to each context.
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
place greater emphasis on principles 3 and 4: their capacity for autonomous
action, for initiative and innovation. For intergovernmental relations to yield
positive results, each government must accept the merits of the others' views
and they must all respect the other principles: respect for the Constitution,
fairness, exchange of information, and transparency.
We, politicians and bureaucrats, practitioners of
federalism, who live day to day with all of the ups and downs of
intergovernmental relations, must not forget that our fellow citizens, in their
great majority, care much less than we do about who does what and how. They want
quality public services for their tax dollars. In this respect, they are
generally more pragmatic than we are. In Canada, for example, opinion polls show
that Canadians everywhere in the country, including Quebec, are in favour of
greater collaboration between orders of government rather than in favour of
large trends either towards centralization or decentralization.
It is in our interest, in fact, to judge our
federations pragmatically, based on their results in terms of the quality of
life they provide. It is too easy to be negative and to compile a list of the
intergovernmental conflicts and disagreements that exist in the life of a
federation, without pointing to the more numerous agreements. In Canada, around
500 intergovernmental agreements have been signed over the last 15 years. They
have had a beneficial impact on Canadians. We should say this more often.
Our federations must be judged by the results
they achieve, even when it comes to constitutional issues. In Canada, the
parliament of my province, Quebec, did not accept the Constitution Act, 1982 and
the subsequent constitutional negotiations intended to resolve this disagreement
failed. Must we conclude that Canada has failed? The answer is certainly no. The
Constitution Act, 1982, while perfectible, must be judged in terms of its
results, its impact on citizens' quality of life. Canadians, including Quebecers,
appreciate its main elements: a charter of rights and freedoms, better
protection for the French language, the inclusion of equalization in the
Constitution and the possibility of bilateral constitutional amendments (which
finally allowed for the secularization of the Quebec and Newfoundland school
systems). In order to continually improve our federations, including their
constitutions, we must be fair about them, judge them by their results, without
complacency, but also without negativity.
Conclusion
Federalism is more than an effective method of
governance. It is also an apprenticeship in negotiation, the art of conflict
resolution, an inevitable dimension of life in society. 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 the functioning of unitary countries.
We Canadians, are experiencing one of the most
difficult debates a federation can have: the possibility of its break-up. Some
of my fellow citizens in Quebec, a minority, in my opinion, think that the
Canadian federation is not suited to Quebec, and that Quebec must become an
independent country. It is important that this difficult debate be conducted
with respect for democracy, the rule of law and human dignity. Our long
experience with federalism should help us in this respect.
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 the proof
that diversity is not a problem, rather a strength for a country. Of course,
intergovernmental relations within a federation are often highly complex, but as
practitioners of federalism we must never forget that beyond that necessary
complexity, that is our daily experience, federalism is, first and foremost, a
profoundly human undertaking.
Check against delivery
|
