Surname 1

Name

Lecturer

Course

Date

Federalism in Canada

Federalism is a political system where the powers of state are shared between the national

and the sub national governments. The system must have at least two levels of government, and

the citizens therefore have obligation to all the levels. Federalism helps to curb the excesses of

the executive by according some authority to the lower units of government, and effectively

remove ant twilight zone that may bring conflicts in carrying out governmental functions.

In a federal system of government, there is usually the central government, which

basically deals with matters which are not of direct and immediate consequence to the people at

the grass roots. This means, it deals on matters of general application, across board, matters

which affect the whole country. Issues of foreign policy, national defense and international trade

are it competencies. The rationale here is, foreign policy has to be standard across the board,

because the autonomous sub national units are not recognized by instruments of international law

as to warrant them transact any deal. This explains why, for instance, Québécoise cannot

determine how they relate with the outside world. The way a country relates to another is a

matter of the state- the sovereign entity- to decide.

A matter of defending the national borders is also a responsibility of the central

government. The military and national intelligence are therefore centrally coordinated. The local

governments would deal with the other issues which impact directly of the people on the ground.
 Surname 2

Matters of shelter among other welfare affairs are concerns of the sub national governments,

alongside regional security within the federal units.

For an effective federation, there has to be factors that bring the different aspects of the

communities to federate. Any entity must therefore have a purpose for federating, one that has

the support of the entire population. The citizenry must have an overarching loyalty to both the

federation and the federal units, be it a federation of formerly fully sovereign states or a

federation within a sovereign state (Franck 1968). Often spoken drive for federation include

shared culture, ethnicity, history and practices (Kymlicka 1995). This aspect was lacking in the

former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, leading to its disintegration in early 90s under

Gorbachev. The territory was so large, and had remarkable differences, on ethnic loyalty, and

some small other cultural differences. Former leaders had used force to compel compliance.

There are two conceptions of a federal system of government, depending on the scale and

form taken. One is the kind of federation involving two or more sovereign states, and this has an

international bearing. Cases here include the European Union and the East African Community,

if at all they will come together as the plans currently indicate. The other concerns a sovereign

state being divided into smaller semi-autonomous regions, each with its constitutional sphere of

influence and competence. The functions of each level have to be well demarcated to avoid cases

of duplication and conflict in terms of operation. Such case is in the United States, Nigeria,

Canada, among others.

There is however a form of federalism, the con-federal system, where the states are

loosely attached to the center. These sub units are the ones issuing the pecking order, and the

center is just ceremonial. This was adopted in the United States before the current federal system
 Surname 3

was brought into bearing, but was a terrible failure, as the individuals states were not in

agreement on several issues. The system is what is being championed by the French-speaking

population in Canada. The reasons favoring a federal system are varied. First, it is a system

where defense will be strongly coordinated, thus averting threats from foreign aggression.

Economic progress is also at an advantage as the system would provide for removal of

trade barriers, thus creating economies of scale through established trade agreements. Also, the

sheer population of a federated unit is strong enough to earn it influence in the international

arena.

A federal unit would help in protection of the rights of the minority. In a democracy, the

principle is always that that the majority would make a decision. The fact is that the majority are

not always right. The federal unit would therefore try to consider the wishes of the minority in a

particular area, because the purpose of a federation is to provide local leadership to the local

people, bringing the leadership closer to the people and widening the social contacts of different

talents. Entrusting the center with some limited authority to intervene in the affairs of the local

unit, the local units would be compelled to protect the rights of the minority.

In a federal system sovereignty may not be misused to infringe on the rights of the

minority or political opposites as the smaller units may authoritatively raise a finger. The cases of

crimes against humanity and genocide would be as low as possible, due to the diversity of

cultures, sweeping away prospects of an absolute majority population of any given ethnic,

cultural or social group.

 Surname 4

In a federal arrangement, the political influence of former weak sovereign states may be

achieved. Such states may have some form of veto power, where they can now influence

decisions in the system.

A federal system plays a vital role in the promotion of justice in society. It would create a

system of positive competition within units. A federal unit is paused with a challenge, and

borrows a leave from a success story of a fellow unit.

The small teething problems affecting a particular country may be put to rest in case a

federal system is adopted. In Europe, the insurgency that has become a thorn in the Spanish

government’s flesh may be smoked out with the inception of a Brussels’ European Government,

for instance.

A federal system within a sovereign state, as a form of internal governance, would help

emancipate the minority from the dictatorship of the majority. The central government may not

be allowed to influence policies which are unpopular with the masses, which may constitute the

minority at the national level. A society with mixed cultures is a strong one, and a source of

security for that matter (Acton, Lord 1907, p277).

A federal system promotes civilian participation in governmental operations and in policy

making forums. The government will have to establish offices around its area of jurisdiction, to

make deliberations on matters affecting the local population (Mill 1863 Cap 15). In the United

States, Congressional districts usually come up with legislations on matters affecting the citizens

of that district directly.

In a federation, the preferences of the masses are considered in the policy agenda of the

government. This would sound prominently for the economy, where economic development
 Surname 5

would be shaped as per the efficient preferences of the majority. The benefits of a federation in

this case will be far less the same as the benefits that would accrue to a decentralized system of

government, like the case in Britain where the executive authority lies at the center but the local

units have a major stake in the general policy formulation.

A federal system may also be credited for allowing specialization in production.

Individuals who feel competent in the production of specific products would move to the

autonomous region specializing in the preferred line of production. This would then create an

environment where people with the same economies and developmental ideologies are at the

same place, resulting into optimum production (Tiebout 1956).

A federal system allows for people’s power to make decisions in society. The people

would unite for a common purpose but remain separate in terms of their cultural orientations. It

provides for a unity of purpose, where diversity is acknowledged in a united society. Canada is

divided into two autonomous governments, the central or federal government, and the provincial

governments. These two levels are autonomous to each other in operation assuring the equality

of both the French speaking Quebecois and the English speaking population..

Canada’s federal system is unique from other federal units as it embraces a federation,

while entertaining a British mode of fusion of powers. A parliamentary system as found in

Britain, leads to a strong government, unitary in structure with the centre controlling all aspects

of government. Actually the Prime Minister is in charge of the whole government, from top to

bottom. This is contrary to a federal system which involves the formation of sub national levels,

with autonomy in operation. The two may therefore not work concurrently. David Milne argues

that Canada has failed to enforce a strong sense of national identity, probably due to its system of
 Surname 6

federalism which is a cause of division. Some blame this lack of national cohesion to the system,

opining that a unitary system could be much better (Simeon Richard).

The federal status of Canada is one of the three constitutional pillars, the other two being

a responsible government and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The federal status means the

country, under the monarch of the United Kingdom has authority elaborately shared between the

central government and the lower governments. The idea for this form of government came as a

need arose to have the distinction between the Quebec, who are French speakers of Lower

Canada, and the English speakers of Ontario, Upper Canada. The Constitution of Canada itself

was as a result of the Constitutional Act, 1867 with amendments in the British North American

Acts as well as the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Act granted each province powers to be in charge of the provision of basic services.

Legislative control of the provinces was also assured in the document. The basic services include

hospitals, charities, asylums, municipal institutions, among others. It was therefore an exclusive

jurisdictional power for the provincial governments in areas of prisons, and also property and

civil rights. Section 93, for instance, granted exclusive rights on educational legislation to

provincial governments. There are however some areas where powers are shared and that

legislation can be done by both the provincial and the federal government, like in the area of

agriculture and immigration. This is termed as concurrent powers, meaning that both levels of

government have a constitutional authority to legislate, as found in Section 95.

The federal parliament of Canada has a defined scope of power in all legislation matters.

The Constitution Act of 1867 has all these in Sections 91 through 95. The provisions have

however been blamed for ambiguities which have been solved by the Supreme Court and,
 Surname 7

initially before 1949, by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Section 91 provides for the

peace, order and good government, and the same constitution provides for a broad provincial

jurisdiction on matters of property ownership and preservation of civil rights. Problems of

interpretation have thus occurred in these areas, thus creating a conflict between the national and

the provincial government. Where as the Constitution in Section 91 (27) apportions exclusive

jurisdiction over criminal law and procedure to the federal government, Section 92(14)

apportions the provincial government with jurisdiction over the administration of justice, in

which the practice includes criminal and penal matters.

The Canadian political system, being a vague combination of a parliamentary system and

a federation, has not been without controversies. The political tensions have led to debates on

asymmetrical federalism and open federalism, after the repeated Quebec referendums. In April

2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper admitted before a Montreal audience that it was time to

establish open, honest and respectful relationship with the provinces (Uniting Canada).

The Canadian federalism is said to be poorly aligned with the current challenges in the

highly globalizing world. The federation should be rethought from an economic perspective to

face the challenges present challenges. There is need for a deviation from the past where policy

was on the social sphere, not economic. At independence, there was a split between the

Anglophone founders and the francophone founders of Canada, where the Anglophones opted

for a unitary parliamentary system while their opposite number went for a federal government

where they would have their cultures defended by their community, and not by the central

government. They therefore favored a system of a nation within a nation, so as to maintain their

identity (La Minerve). The arguments could only lead to a compromise, which came up with a
 Surname 8

weak establishment. Their common point of meeting was that they were not Americans, and that

they did not want an annexation of their territory by America. Otherwise, the other aspects of

bringing any nation together were conspicuously lacking, including a shared history, culture,

language, and national goals. This is not the unity in diversity advocated by a federal set up, it is

an absurd mix dangerously positioned for political stability (LaSelva Samuel).

The classical federalism of Canada constituted a genuine federal style of government,

with the provinces operating within their jurisdiction in relation to the federal government. It was

the war years that changed the balance, when the federal government usurped so much power to

be able to fight its wars and mend the post economy. The national government levied taxes;

personal and corporate. It imposed wages and controlled commodity prices. Strikes were

subsequently banned for effective control of the government from the center. This was the

beginning of a totalitarian center, in a newly forming unitary regime. After World War II the

federal government was unwilling to surrender back the provincial powers it had taken prior to

the war as was the case just after the World War I. The federal government imposed nationwide

policies on economy and social welfare, thus rendering the provincial governments

inconsequential in the running of the affairs of the sub national governments.

The objection to the state of affairs was resisted by Quebec elites who demanded a

special relationship between the Center and the Provincial governments. Their intent was to

regain their tax sources and revenues and to have a reduced influence of the federal government

in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The federal government embarked on formulation of policies aimed at countering the

provincialisation forces (Smiley, D.). The federal officials were worried with the enthusiasm of
 Surname 9

the provinces, fearing that the center may loose its influence. The center therefore came up with

policies to lure some constituencies to its side. Prime Minister Trudeau formulated a favorable

national energy policy for central Canadians in an effort to get them on the centralist side of the

political debate. He also came up with a Charter of Rights intended to act as an instrument

limiting the provincialization of Canadian society, as stressed by the Quebecoise (Cairns, A).

They argue the Charter was for the intention of national unity, and nothing political.

For a federal system, Canadians must realize and recognize the existence, and hence

acknowledged of the different cultures within the society. A federal system has to appreciate the

diversity in society and endeavor to keep these diverse opinions together. It is definite that an

idea cannot be forced into a society by judicial means. The charter by the Trudeau government

may be fatal should its intention be found to be judicializing politics. This would be a detriment

to national unity and cohesion. The base here is that Canada is one nation, inhabited by two

founding peoples, a people who should live and coexist as they have done.
 Surname 1
0
Works cited

Acton, Lord, (1907), "Nationality." in J. N. Figgis, (ed.), The History of Freedom and Other

Essays London: Macmillan.

Dion, Stéphane et al. The Collapse of Canada? Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

(1992). P2.

Federalism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006. Retrieved July 28th, 2008 from

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/federalism/#ReaForFed

Franck, Thomas M., ed., 1968, Why Federations Fail: An Inquiry into the Requisites for

Successful Federalism. New York: New York University Press.

Hueglin, T.O. Compounded Federal Democracy, 2002. Comparative Federalism Retrieved July

28th, 2008 from http://www.indiana.edu

Kymlicka, Will, and Wayne Norman, eds., 2000, Citizenship in Diverse Societies. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Makarenko, Jay. Federalism in Canada: Basic Framework and Operation. Mapleleafweb January

11th 2008. Retrieved July 28th, 2008 from

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/federalism-canada-basic-framework-and

operation#introduction

Mill, John Stuart, 1861, Considerations on Representative Government. 1958, New York:Liberal

Arts Press. Available online at http://philosophy.eserver.org/mill-representative-govt.txt.

Sibley, Robert Why Those Charting Canada's Future Cannot Forget the Past, The Ottawa Citizen

June 10, 2006. Retrieved July 28th, 2008 from

http://www.uni.ca/opinions/fed_history_e.php
 Surname 11

Tiebout, Charles M., 1956, "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures." Journal of Political

Economy 64, 5: 416-24.