A delicate balance

With focus on nation-building projects, what should federal-provincial collaboration look like?

Image illustrating June 3 article by Tom Brodbeck in the Winnipeg Free Press, “First ministers meeting produces unfamiliar but encouraging sense of optimism.” Photo credit Liam Richards/Canadian Press.

Prime Minister Carney’s Liberals have rightly put their emphasis on “nation-building projects” and the Prime Minister has engaged the provincial premiers to work with the federal government to identify which projects should be given priority and be put on the fast track. The challenge: choosing and designing projects which best serve the national interest while also preserving other core values. We asked readers last Monday to reflect on whether the government’s Bill C-5’s Building Canada Act is getting the balance wrong with respect to democratic values and Indigenous rights (“Ford’s Bill 5 and Carney’s Bill C-5, two peas in a pod?”). Today, we focus on national unity.

Ours is a highly decentralized federation of diverse interests and capacities, Quebec’s distinct society and the Indigenous right to “free, prior and informed consent.” And Canada, unlike some federations such as Australia, has not put in place an agreed framework for intergovernmental collaboration, relying instead on ad hoc tools and methods which varied depending on circumstances, fiscal pressures and the ideology of the federal government of the day. Not surprisingly federal governments have often been reluctant to take on so-called nation-building projects, whether economic or social, and, when they do, things typically get very messy, often take considerable time, and sometimes just get stymied. But now more than ever Canada needs to get things done, fast, and with as little mess as possible. Quite the challenge.

Emmett Macfarlane

has written an important and provocative piece which he called “It’s time for a centralization movement in Canada” (May 20). He is not calling for constitutional change, for more powers for the federal government. Rather, he makes the case that the federal government should be far less timid in using the constitutional powers they already have particularly with respect to the national economy, notwithstanding the potential for overreach. The much-maligned federal spending power – whereby the federal government makes conditional transfers to the provinces in areas of provincial jurisdiction – has been the major centralizing force in Canadian politics. Without it, many of our most valued health and social policy innovations would never have materialized.

Macfarlane also rightly argues that provincial politicians too have a responsibility to protect national unity and rarely has that been more important than in the face of the Trump regime’s assault on Canada. Here's how he concludes his piece:

For too long we have put up with a federalism in which provinces act like the whiny, selfish crybabies of Confederation. This is not [a] function of the federal government always being right and provinces always being wrong. Indeed, part of the problem is that the feds are often weak and selfish in a different way, ineffective at capturing hearts and minds in the face of provincial populist appeals and capitulating far too easily in the face of illegitimate or fact-free demands. Case in point: had the Trudeau Liberals taken a different tact to some of their policies – and some of the communications around them – perhaps we would not have lost a perfectly valid carbon pricing policy to the effects of little more than raw disinformation about how it worked.

Nor is this to say that there aren’t areas where provincial authority warrants respect, and indeed where federalism as a laboratory of policy experimentation and learning shouldn’t be further cultivated. In some areas – health care reform being one example – too much ‘federal leadership’ can inhibit policy innovation and stymie effective solutions. But this requires provinces with real leaders instead of people who constantly blame the feds for the problems they themselves refuse to address.

Whatever the federal level’s ills, provincial governments far too often escape responsibility in conversations around federalism. Where is the responsibility of provincial politicians to protect national unity? When the feds increase health care funding or provide billions in extra support during the pandemic, and it turns out provinces like Ontario decrease health spending and close emergency rooms across the province, why doesn’t that resonate? I fear it is because we have become a country that prioritizes pitting regions against each other, that is prone to misinformation about how federalism actually works, and where much of the electorate has succumbed to petty, selfish provincial populist rhetoric.

And for these reasons, we need to seize this rare moment of Canadian patriotism and start championing the national role. We need to start demanding of the feds that they grow a spine, assert their authority, and show some long-term vision. And we need to start pushing back on anyone – including provincial elites – who seek to divide or attack Canada at this decisive, fragile, and historic moment in one of the too few true democracies on Earth.

Of course, none of that is to say, and Macfarlane acknowledges, that we don’t need to be much better at intergovernmental relations and develop better tools for engagement and cooperation.

Jared Wesley

has some useful advice on how to reduce the friction and promote a more cooperative federalism, through developing intergovernmental norms (for example, to guide the use of the spending power) and formal mechanisms to improve intergovernmental diplomacy. (“Carney's Federalism Dilemma: The prime minister must choose avoidance or engagement,” May 2)

“This starts,” he writes, “with institutionalizing First Ministers’ Meetings, moving them from sporadic events to annual fixtures with jointly determined priorities. These summits should no longer be convened only in moments of federal need; they should serve as the engine of collaborative governance, As seen early in the pandemic, regular interaction breeds familiarity and buy-in. The next step is permanence.”

So how do we move right now? The Prime Minister has had, by all accounts, a very successful initial meeting with the Premiers – at least on “the bonhomie index” – and has indicated that he will not, at this time, impose any infrastructure initiative on an unwilling province, a wise decision in the circumstances.

The bottom line: this is a time for building and this a time for national unity. Federal leadership will be required for both. With respect to building a more resilient Canada we made the case last week that priority be given to projects that integrate economic, social and environmental objectives (“Investing in people and in social goods: smart and moral economics for PM Carney's "major projects" push,” June 4). With respect to unity, building the machinery and establishing the norms for a more cooperative federalism should itself be one of our “nation-building” priorities. (We will have more to say in future posts about how to reconcile speed with respect for democratic values, environmental imperatives, and Indigenous rights.)

What do you think?