|
"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.
|
