We asked participants to tell us what a social democratic approach to federalism should look like. The response was a strong consensus in favour of an asymmetrical approach, based upon a cooperative model for decision making. What was abundantly clear was that social democrats understand the complexity of our federation and the impossibility of finding a magic solution to the so-called "unity debate".
Perhaps it is even time to stop thinking about the issue as a debate - that is, as a battle between two opposing, absolute positions. Absolutists want to know which side our Party is on in the battle between centralization and decentralization. We need to resist this dynamic and offer instead a reasoned and balanced alternative, one that we can offer to Canadians in all regions in a spirit of constructive dialogue.
Many progressive Canadians - particularly those living outside Québec - believe that too much devolution of powers to the provinces will further erode our social safety net. They fear an end to universality, reduced services, privatization and other regressive changes. This fear was widely articulated in our meetings and workshops, but was especially prevalent in provinces where right-wing governments have done significant damage to social programs (Alberta, Ontario) and areas that rely heavily on federal funding, equalization payments, and other forms of support that require a more centralized approach (Atlantic Canada, Yukon).
Quebecers had less of a fear of this, having more confidence in their government and, perhaps, a greater sense of collective responsibility. Most social democrats outside Québec understand why decentralization is appealing to Quebecers, and is less of a threat to social programs there - although some did express concern about recent cutbacks in that province, the latent Toryism of Premier Bouchard, and other potential future threats to the social democratic consensus in that province. In general, many are concerned that decentralization or further devolution of power will put us on the fast track towards privatization, inequities in services and programs offered in different parts of Canada, and erosion of the sense of collective responsibility that many feel distinguishes our country. Without federal checks and balances, without some pan-Canadian standards, can we really trust the provinces to do what is right?
But social democrats also asked whether we can really trust the federal government to do what is right. After all, we are currently living with a right-wing federal government that slashed federal transfer payments, dumped the responsibility for managing the crisis in health care and other programs on to the provinces and territories, and cut the federal spending power to deplorable levels. It also balanced the budget by slashing benefits to the unemployed and pilfering the Employment Insurance surplus. This is also a government that participated in the secret negotiations for the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, an agreement that would have seriously compromised Canadian sovereignty, not to mention our social programs and our environment. It is fruitless to have a strong central government if that government does not act in the public interest. Accordingly, social democrats believe that the federal government also needs checks and balances.
So what does this leave us with? In many ways, the political climate surrounding these issues - the national unity debate - has reduced our options to two absolutes: federal unilateralism or complete devolution of powers to the provinces. Choose one or the other, we’re told. You’re with us, or against us. Refusal to take a side means you’re dismissed as wishy-washy, doomed to irrelevance.
Recent events - in particular, the 1998 Supreme Court ruling on Québec secession - have illustrated that the complexity of the situation requires a balanced approach. That ruling, which echoed long-standing NDP policy, adds weight to our conviction that New Democrats must continue to resist an extremist approach to federalism. We must begin to think outside of the destructive oppositions that have dominated the debate for so long. It is time for Canadians to stop thinking in absolute terms, but instead embrace the nuances and dynamism of our federation. We must find a model that complements this.
Unilateralism is no model for governance, especially in a country as diverse as Canada. Each province, each territory, each region has special characteristics, needs, and challenges. Every level of government has a stake in ensuring that each region of the country is able to thrive economically, socially and culturally, and that all citizens are able to share the benefits of Canada’s success and participate in the democratic process.
Absolute decentralization is not an acceptable alternative, either. One group at our BC workshop observed that decentralization is being touted as a potential cure for regional alienation. But that doesn’t solve the local issues, it doesn’t help our eroding social safety net, and it provides less stability for citizens by diminishing our sense of national identity. As many Forum participants pointed out, decentralization to ten "equal" provinces will not address the concerns of the people of Québec. Most Forum participants questioned the notion of "equality of the provinces" - or, at least, felt that the phrase lends itself too easily to multiple and conflicting definitions and should be articulated differently. Many pointed out that if all provinces were equal, there would be no need for equalization payments. Others emphasized that "equal" should not be taken to mean "exactly the same". Canada is not a homogeneous country, nor do we want it to be.
Forum participants clearly rejected both absolute positions. They urged the New Democratic Party to take a leadership role in advocating a model of the federation in which provincial and territorial governments work cooperatively with the federal government to ensure the social, economic and cultural welfare of all Canadians.
As Bill Blaikie has pointed out in his paper, "New Democrats and National Unity", the Party has
consistently supported, in one form or another, the essential duality of Canada’s non-aboriginal political culture and the recognition of Québec as a distinct society. It has also held that a federal system flexible and cooperative enough to accommodate the diversity of Canada’s regional realities was not inconsistent with a federal government capable of delivering a wide array of national social programs with national standards that would define a Canadian citizenship.
In fact, our advocacy of cooperative federalism dates back to the Party’s founding convention in 1961, when it passed the following policy:
.... The New Democratic Party affirms its belief in a federal system which alone insures the united development of the two nations which originally associated to form the Canadian partnership, as well as that of other ethnic groups which later made Canada their home. Canada’s constitution particularly guarantees the national identity of French Canadians and the development of their culture. The New Democratic Party will fully maintain and respect these guarantees. Canadian federalism must provide for the protection of cultural, religious and other democratic rights, permit the vigorous and balanced growth of the country as a whole, and assure provincial autonomy.
The New Democratic Party believes that social and economic planning must take place at all levels of government. It therefore looks to close collaboration amongst responsible governments to coordinate plans and administration and to set Canadian minimum standards...
Our founding convention called for a cooperative model of federalism, with specific provisions to enable Québec to maintain its linguistic and cultural integrity. Thirty-seven years later, participants in the Social Democratic Forum on Canada’s Future revealed that New Democrats still subscribe to these fundamental principles.
Participants also emphasized that we must articulate a vision of the federation that is appropriate for Canada in the new millenium while building upon our founding principles. Many participants at our meetings challenged the Party to take a stronger position in support of asymmetrical federalism. As Bob White put it, we "should put more meat on the bones of the policies that already exist". We also heard a lot about finding ways for various levels of government to work together to set clear standards for social programs.
The labour movement provided us with perhaps the clearest articulation of the possibilities for an asymmetrical model. Both the Fédération des travailleuses et des travailleurs du Québec and the Canadian Labour Congress suggested that we might look to their relationship as an example of the kind of partnership that could be established between Québec and the rest of Canada. This relationship is based on the principle that what the CLC negotiates with Québec, it doesn’t negotiate with other provincial federations of labour. The CLC-FTQ agreement sets out clear roles and responsibilities as well as fiscal arrangements which allow the FTQ to finance the additional functions. The relationship is, according to the CLC, based on mutual respect and the reality that "we are in two different worlds". This relationship, however, is also based upon shared values and common goals. Can this really be extended to apply to a country as diverse as ours, where the political players have not shared the same commitment to social justice and equity?
We believe that asymmetry, accompanied by a strong commitment to cooperative decision making, is the best approach to the Canadian federation. It allows the recognition of the Aboriginal and Québec Peoples in a meaningful way. It also accommodates the diversity of provinces and regions, each with different circumstances and needs requiring different approaches and solutions.
Canada has already recognized such asymmetry as a reality and a necessity. Equalization payments, for example, extend special support to the territories, in recognition of the unique circumstances facing northern communities. Québec has its own civil code, its own pension plan, control over immigration, and other mechanisms that allow it to protect and promote its French culture. What we need now is a framework that would facilitate intergovernmental relations, set out clear roles and responsibilities, enhance cooperation, and guarantee stable funding so that all governments can do what they need to build a healthy, caring, just society.
Our federation’s policies and structures must be responsive to the different situations of the diverse societies that make up Canada. Different provinces, different communities will fit in differently to the whole because the needs and predicaments of their citizens are different. That Québec shares the field of immigration with the federal government, for example, is not an arbitrary anomaly. It is a response to the reality that Québec is the centre of one of Canada’s two immigrant societies. Similarly, any model of federalism must be able to respond to the needs of Aboriginal Peoples.
But federalism is more than finding ways for governments to work together. The Canadian federation must be responsive to the needs of its citizens, embrace and encourage our country’s geographic, linguistic and cultural diversity, and reflect our shared values of cooperation, mutual responsibility, equity and justice. A strong federation is built upon a healthy participatory democracy that engages its citizens in continuous and constructive debate. We need a vision of federalism that acknowledges and encompasses these different, yet connected, facets.
Recommendation #1: Our goal is to build a Canada that recognizes and responds to the needs of its citizens - and acknowledges the many ways in which our country is diverse. Canadians need guarantees that their basic social, economic, environmental, cultural and democratic rights will be protected and promoted by all levels of government.
Accordingly, the NDP advocates a new framework for Canada: Responsive Federalism, based on the principles of co-decision and the recognition of the Canadian diversity. Responsive Federalism is a framework which recognizes and responds to the geographic, cultural and linguistic diversity of the Canadian federation, including the unique situations of the Aboriginal and Québec Peoples, and by which governments work cooperatively to promote the social, cultural and economic well-being of all Canadians. Responsive Federalism includes the following elements:
- Affirming our Social and Economic Rights: A Social Union Based on the Principle of Co-decision
- Protecting our Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all Canadians
- Securing Justice for Aboriginal Peoples and First Nations
- Recognizing and Respecting the Québec People in a Meaningful Way
- Protecting French-Speaking Minorities
- Revitalizing Democracy
The following section of this report will elaborate on each of these elements.
