|
"Federalism in Argentina
and Canada:
Five criteria
for comparison to better learn
from
each other"
Notes for an address
by the Honourable Stéphane Dion,
President of the Privy Council and
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Faculty of Law
University of Buenos Aires
Buenos Aires, Argentina
May 3, 2001
Check against delivery
Relations between Argentina and Canada blossomed considerably during the
1990s. Between 1992 and 2000, trade almost tripled, and cooperation
developed in the sciences, the arts, culture and many other areas. In light
of the diversity of our common interests, it is not surprising that the
delegation that is accompanying the Head of State, Her Excellency the
Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Governor General of Canada,
includes parliamentarians, Aboriginal leaders, academics, artists,
scientists and businesspeople. Following the Summit of the Americas that
ended in Quebec City on April 22, our two countries are called on to have
increasingly close, sustained and productive relations.
We
therefore have an interest in knowing each other better. In this respect,
the fact that one of our common traits is federalism will be useful to us.
To be sure, our two federations are different in many aspects. But sharing
our experience of federalism is certainly one way of learning from each
other.
This
is, by the way, the goal of the Forum of Federations, that is to help
federated countries forge closer ties on the basis of their common political
system. That is why I want to thank the Forum of Federations and the
Asociacion Conciencia for organizing this event, here, at the Law Faculty of
the University of Buenos Aires. Let us hope that such meetings are repeated
often in Argentinian and Canadian universities, and also in the five other
federations of our hemisphere: Brazil, Venezuela, Saint Kitts and Nevis,
Mexico and the United States.
It is
very true that the countries I have just mentioned, like the 17 other
federations in the world, are very different from one another. Some of these
federations are among the most wealthy countries, others are developing
countries, some span a continent or have huge populations, others are very
modest in size or population.
Nevertheless, the fact that all these countries are federations influences
their political life. I will not pretend to be a specialist on Argentina.
But I know that one cannot understand Canada if one forgets that it is a
federation. The relations between the federal government and the governments
of the provinces and territories are undeniably one of the most fundamental
aspects of my country. Indeed, I wonder if any country in the world is more
marked by its intergovernmental relations than is Canada.
I see
five reasons for this, five reasons that explain why federal-provincial
relations exert a fundamental influence on the way my country works. I am
going to describe those five reasons to you. They will help me to present
Canadian federalism to you, so that you can judge how similar or dissimilar
it is to your country's federalism.
My
objective is certainly not to try to determine which of these two
federalisms is preferable to the other. Every federation evolves in its own
way. I simply want to propose some criteria for comparison that will help
you better understand Canadian federalism. Who knows, perhaps it will give
you a deeper understanding of your own federalism. In conclusion, I will
propose seven principles of action that I believe all federations, above and
beyond what may distinguish them, would do well to follow.
1. The strength of our provinces
In
the world of federations, there are few constituent entities more powerful
than a Canadian province. Canada's Constitution grants them broad
legislative jurisdictions of their own. Article 75 of your reformed
Constitution of 1994 assigns to your federal government responsibilities
that, in Canada, are constitutional jurisdictions assigned exclusively to
the provinces. This is the case with private law, for example. Or education:
in Canada, only the provincial governments can legislate in this area, from
primary school to university.
There
are very few policies that Canada's federal government can implement on its
own without having to cooperate with the provinces. For example, the most
difficult federal-provincial negotiations in recent years have been in
connection with the establishment of a new financial aid program for
students. In modern federations, even those that, like Canada, make
education an exclusive provincial jurisdiction, financial aid to students
for post-secondary studies is a shared jurisdiction. But in Canada, our
provincial governments value their autonomy to such an extent that, when the
federal government launched a new student aid initiative, which it called
"the millennium scholarships," a number of provincial governments
saw it as a threat of encroachment onto their educational jurisdictions.
Arduous negotiations were necessary before a program acceptable to all the
provincial governments could be put in place.
Even
in the area of foreign policy, Canada's federal government must often obtain
the support of the provincial governments. Constitutional jurisprudence very
clearly gives the government of each province the latitude to apply or not
to apply an international treaty that affects one or more of its fields of
jurisdiction. The application of a treaty as vast in scope as one such as
the Free Trade Area of the Americas, or the Kyoto Protocol, would inevitably
affect provincial jurisdictions. For this reason, the Government of Canada
consults the provincial governments thoroughly when negotiating such
treaties.
Another source of power for our provinces, in addition to the extent of
their constitutional legislative powers, lies in their fiscal and budgetary
weight. Table 1 highlights the contrast between our two federations in
this respect. With regard to own-source revenues of the three orders of
government (federal, provincial and municipal) - that is, their revenues
excluding transfers they receive from other governments - we can see that
the provinces' share of revenues is significantly higher in Canada than in
Argentina. This is also the case with direct spending - that is, the
governments' spending excluding transfers they make to other governments.
The fiscal and budgetary weight of Canada's provinces is also strengthened
by the fact that they are less dependent than are Argentina's provinces on
federal transfers to finance their activities.
2. The small number of our provinces
In
Canada, there are few provinces. We tally only 10 Canadian provinces (plus
three territories), compared with 23 provinces (and one federal district) in
Argentina, 23 states in Venezuela, 26 in Brazil, 31 in Mexico and 50 in the
United States.
The
relatively small number of Canadian provinces is not without consequence for
our political life. It contributes in at least three ways to making the
provinces major actors in the Canadian federal system. First, it makes it
less complicated to build interprovincial cohesion. A simple conference
call, for example, is still practical with 10 people; it becomes impractical
with 20 or 30.
Second, this small number makes it possible to hold frequent interprovincial
or federal-provincial meetings, and this, in all fields: economic, social,
environmental, agricultural. Rarely a week goes by without at least one such
meeting. It is in large part through the impetus of these exchanges between
ministers or senior officials that Canadian federalism evolves.
Third, the small number of our provinces prevents provincial power from
becoming too thinly spread. 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.
3. The role of our second chamber
Canadian senators are not elected. They are chosen by the federal executive
branch. This has two consequences for our federal system.
First, these unelected senators are not in a position to compete with the
provincial premiers as spokespersons for the provinces. The situation is
different in the United States, for example, where senators are at least as
much a force to be reckoned with as are state governors in terms of who
speaks for the states.
Second, since our senators are appointed by the federal executive branch,
rather than the executive branches or legislatures of the constituent
entities, intergovernmental relations in Canada consequently take place
between executive branches that are clearly distinct and that are not
institutionally linked through Parliament. We do not have a federal chamber
of the provinces along the lines of the German Bundesrat, for
example.
In
Argentina, you used to have the German model: you will now have the American
model. Your senators were formerly chosen by the provincial legislative
assemblies: they will now be elected directly by the population. It will be
interesting to see the effects this change will have on your
federation.
4. The strength of the executive branch in
relation to the legislative branch
There
are 24 federations in the world. Only four of them 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 and the provincial premiers sign an
agreement, each of them usually has the capacity to ensure it is
implemented, without having to negotiate with a parliamentary coalition.
In
comparison, the federations with a presidential system, such as Argentina,
Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico and the United States, as well as those with a
proportional representation electoral system, tend to have intergovernmental
relations that are more diffuse and deeply marked by the balance between the
executive and legislative branches and among party coalitions.
In
the United States, the relationship between the White House and Congress
attracts the most attention. In Canada, it is the relationship between the
Prime Minister of Canada and the provincial premiers. In a number of other
federations, the thing to watch for in particular is the interplay of
parliamentary coalitions. What is the situation in Argentina?
Usually, when a federation has ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious
minorities, they tend to identify themselves particularly with the federal
government or federal institutions in general. They tend to see the federal
authority as protector. I do not know whether this is the case for your
minorities, but it is a phenomenon that is often observed.
The
situation is different, however, if a minority forms the majority within one
of the provinces. In such a case, the minority tends to identify itself
particularly with the province and its institutions, because it forms the
majority within the province.
Canada has two official languages, English and French. Francophones make up
24% of the population, but 86% of them are concentrated in one province,
Quebec, where they make up 82% of the population. So it is not surprising
that Francophone Quebecers, in addition to identifying with Canada, also
identify themselves strongly with their province and its own institutions.
If
one of the large states in the U.S. were made up of a population that was
80% Hispanic, the dynamic of the American federation would undoubtedly be
altered. In Canada, Quebec is the largest province by size and the second
largest by population. The Government of Quebec plays a key role in
promoting provincial autonomy in Canada. Moreover, the presence in this
province 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 other federations.
Conclusion
These
are the five factors that I feel fundamentally explain the exceptional
importance of intergovernmental relations in Canada. No other federation
combines all five of them. The United States has none of these
characteristics. Australia, for its part, has two: the small number of
constituent entities (with only six states) and the relative strength of the
executive branch in comparison with the legislative branch. But Australia's
states have substantially less power and autonomous means than do Canada's
provinces, the Australian senate is elected, and Australia does not have a
national minority that forms the majority within one of its states.
I may
be mistaken, but it seems to me that only one of these characteristics
applies, at least in part, to Argentina: the strength of the executive
branch. Otherwise, our two federations differ in more than one way. We need
to bear that in mind if we want to know each other well and learn better
from each other.
I
believe that this mutual understanding between federations is necessary,
because I think that beyond what distinguishes them, their ability to
function effectively depends on respecting certain basic principles. I
believe there are seven such principles, which I will quickly conclude by
listing.
1. The
Constitution must be respected. Infringement of legislative
jurisdictions 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.
3. Governments'
ability to act must be preserved. The capacity for initiative and
innovation must be promoted within each autonomous sphere of activity.
4. The
federation must be flexible. The quest for joint action must take into
account the diversity of the country.
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.
6. The
exchange of information is essential. It 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 and they must be able to assess their performance.
The
importance of these principles in Canada strikes me as evident. I am not
saying that we Canadians fully succeed in respecting these principles. I am
saying we must try our best.
Are
these principles valid in the context of Argentina and the other federations
in the Americas? I tend to think they are, but I will let you be the judge.
What I wish above all is that you, Argentinian students, have the
opportunity to share your thoughts with young Canadians, Mexicans and
Brazilians, because I am sure that we all stand to gain a great deal from
this mutual apprenticeship of federalism.
| Table 1
Revenues, spending and transfer dependence
of the three orders of government in Argentina and Canada |
|
Own-source
revenues1 |
|
Direct
spending2 |
|
Transfer
dependence3 |
|
Argentina4
% |
Canada
% |
|
Argentina4
% |
Canada
% |
|
Argentina4
% |
Canada
% |
| Federal |
60.1 |
45.5 |
|
53.3 |
38.1 |
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
| Provincial |
30.5 |
42.8 |
|
37.1 |
42.0 |
|
23.7 |
16.4 |
| Municipal |
9.5 |
11.7 |
|
9.6 |
19.9 |
|
10.2 |
41.3 |
Source: Argentina:
Ernesto Rezk (2000) (data for 1997).
Canada: National Accounts of
Canada (data for 1999).
Notes:
1 Total revenues minus transfers from
other governments.
2 Total spending minus transfers to other
governments.
3 Transfers from other governments as a
percentage of total revenues.
4 For Argentina, provincial revenues from revenue
sharing ("coparticipation" revenues) are treated as own-source
revenues.
|
