Federalism Explained

Federalism refers to the division of authority and jurisdiction between a minimum of two levels of government, and it usually occurs between two or more legally recognized levels of government. This means that various tiers of administration must be separated under the country’s constitution and have their own autonomous or semi-autonomous constitutional authorities. Canada is one of the countries that have embraced federalism, and Canadian federalism encompasses the current nature and historical evolution of the nation’s federal institutions. The Canadian federation contains 11 jurisdictions under the authority of the government, including a federal crown that spans the entire country and ten provincial crowns (Hardisty 60). Each of these is usually independent of one another in their own realm of legislative authorities. The term federalism refers to the altering relationships between the state and national governments. Federalism goes typically well with nations that have practice pluralism as there are numerous centers of power within the government as well as many other divisions of power. In federalism, usually, the sections of activities under the regulations of the government are well detailed in the constitutional documents so that no single level of the government can alter or interfere with the set standards. The people who developed the Canadian constitution decided to create a system whereby all the member states are sovereign and that have equal power with the federal government. Despite the idea that there have been arguments that debate whether Canada qualifies to be a confederation state, it is identified that the country is federal. This paper, therefore, aims at defining the unique features of the Canadian federalism while highlighting the influence of federalism in Canada and the arguments for and against this form of governance in the country.

Origins of Federalism

Federalism describes the changing relationship between both the national and state government as they develop a plan of how to manage their roles and responsibilities in the federal system. One of the countries known for practicing federalism in the United States; because it has decentralized states thus highlighting the idea that there does not exist a single source of power or one centralized government (Smith 18). As already mentioned federalism works well with pluralism since within this system, there are numerous centers of power existing in a government. Besides this, there are many divisions of power. Federalism has been evolving in the history of America and Europe. At different times, the boundaries that define the power of the national and state government have been changing significantly. The role and responsibility of the national government have dramatically changed in the twentieth century and has continued to expand in the twenty-first century.

The first form of federalism was the dual federalism that existed between 1789 and 1945, and it illustrates the first nature of federalism that existed both in Europe and in the United States and lasted till the end of World War II (Papillon 301). The existing constitution defined the provision for two types of governance at national and state levels. During this era, the national government was mainly concerned with the maintaining national defense, commerce, and foreign policy. The states on the other hand primarily administered local matters, regulation of the economy, and the criminal law. Sometimes this type of federalism was known as layer-cake federalism because the states and the governments have their own distinct areas that defined their roles and responsibilities.

After the civil war in the United States, most of the governments started seeking amendments to the role of the government as many people felt that only the state governments should make a critical decision that affects the individual state (Banting 83). It is at this stage that many governments around the world started defining the role of the national government in the affairs of the state. Such included the privileges and immunities clause, and the equal protection laws. In the twenty-first century, the one idea that has defined the constructs of federalism is globalization as the extensive economy, and global power affects how states relate to each other as well as how nations interact. Today, many countries perceive federalism as a framework of international negotiation whereby it integrates diverse nations and combatant parties who may have a problem sharing a single source of power.

Development of Canadian Federalism

Up until 1867, the British North America colonies never had any political or geographical connections, and each of them had their own governor selected by Britain. Each of these territories had their separate administration with customs and political systems. In 1867, there were only three colonies, and these were the Province of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick and all these came to an agreement to be united federally and create the Dominion of Canada (Mahler 451). Several external factors ensured that the three colonies united and these included:

The notion that the United States was not going to renew the 1854 Reciprocity Treaty and this created a market opportunity for the three colonies.

There was a growing sense of insecurity as America expanded its borders especially during the Civil War and Canada feared that America would take over parts of the nation.

Britain had also desired to reduce its authority over its colonies thus neglecting its obligations and responsibilities.

However, at the end of it all, the prevailing political conditions prompted the formation of the federal union regarding the colonies.

In 1841, the Province of Canada was established after the creation of the Act of Union that saw the Lower Canada and the Upper Canada unite and thus created a legislative assembly that made it easy for them to make domestic political choices free from external influences (Black and Cairns 29). After this union, it became difficult to have a single government that would promote political stability irrespective of the measures designed to promote harmony and preserves the demands of every community. Some of these measures included having two prime ministers, two attorney generals, and laws made specific to one section. In 1864, it became clear that there was a need to create a federal union and the meeting concluded that delegates residing in the Province of Canada would advocate all colonies in Canada (Black and Cairns 29). The colonies expressed their interest in joining the federal union as a way of promoting a socio-economic standpoint that would ensure every section maintain their uniqueness while interacting with each other peacefully. They demanded that they should have their elected legislative assemblies while exercising some level of autonomy of their domestic policies.

The second meeting happened in 1864, and this was to determine the division of powers between the colonies and the federal government. The agreement was that the legislative assemblies would be granted the right to exercise the responsibilities concerning local issues and that there would be a new federal parliament that would overlook any powers relating to standard policies such as the economic and military sectors (Hardisty 61). By 1867, a new federation was born in Canada that protected the rights of the population of the Quebec’s Francophone aimed at preserving the language, religion, and the law (Mahler 450). The British North American Colonies finally became part of Canada either as provinces or as territories each given the opportunity to be autonomous but with a single source of power which was the national government.

Function of Canadian Federalism

The dynamic context of the Canadian federalism is majorly under the influence of the political framework under which federalism is governed. The first thing to understand is the fact Canada is a parliamentary federation and just like Australia, both federal and provincial governments adhere to the British pattern of parliamentary government (Haile 7). The relationship between the legislative and executive branches is string and power is highly concentrated in executive, mainly held by the ministers. One outstanding feature of Canadian federalism is the executive federalism that grants powers first to ministers, members of the cabinet and the senior officials who are always representing the executives instead of the legislative functions.

Besides this, Canadian federalism has a weak senate. The system has a formal authority almost similar to that of the elected House of Commons that offers a representation of a region, however, not explicitly by province. The primary role of the representative of provincial populations is vitiated by the idea that it is the prime minister who appoints the senators. As of today, the Senate plays a minor role in ensuring that there is a balance between the provincial and the federal government.

Canada is also a constitutional federation, and this means that it is the courts that enforce the division of powers and can as well deny the federal or provincial legislation the powers that have been given to them (Baier 59). It is because of this ability that the courts altered the centralist constitution thus strengthening the provinces while weakening the federal powers (Pandey 432). The other feature of the constitutional federalism is the formula used in amendments. Previously, only the British Parliament had the power of amendment. Nonetheless, once the United Kingdom approved the request to withdraw its governance, the Canadians could develop their domestic procedures. It means that the constitutional federalism grants the federal parliament a high bar for the amendment of the constitution. Some of the other features related to the political system under the Canadian federalism is that the federal and provincial parties are distinct from each other. The system of the national party is customarily regionalized, and only one party can claim the national status whiles the official opposition is made up mostly of individuals that are regional based (Kendall and Rekkas 1566). There is fragmentation of political leadership and barely mobilizes the ministers and officials. All these add to the pattern of the intergovernmental links often labeled as federal-provincial diplomacy. Therefore, the Canadian federalism helps in creating a single polity that assists in managing the juridical and fiscal resources available in the country.

Distinct Jurisdictions of the Federal and Provincial Governments

The federal government has exclusive responsibilities over currency, trade, and banking along with the spending power and control over macroeconomic tools. Besides this, the federal government has the responsibility for the monetary policy supported by the Bank of Canada (James and Kasoff 48). The federal government participates in the economic development of the country through the creation of programs that support different sizes of business via regional development programs, tax incentives, promotion of trades, development of labor market and research and development funds. The provincial governments also play a critical role in the economic development as they exercise their tax powers, public lands ownership, control over natural resources, and authority over private economic activities. Additionally, the provincial governments are responsible for encouraging industrial developments in their individual regions and training of labor market as well.

Canada is one of the most decentralized federations in the world. The share of the federal in direct public spending is estimated at 37% while in the United States it is at 61% and 41% in Germany (Mahler, Gregory and March 89). All of the Canadian provinces rely on self-financing systems and the transfers from the federal government make up only about 13% of the revenues in the provinces whereas in the United States it is at 30% (Mahler, Gregory and March 89). The provincial shares of tax have been steadily increasing since the spending in the postwar period, and thus there is not much decline in the federal spending in the rapid growth of the provinces.

Provinces like Ottawa possess the ability to increase revenues through a system of taxation like the customs and excise duty and these by far are the most significant source of income. Provinces can also enforce direct taxes, royalties from the public and license fees. Both the provincial and federal governments currently rely on similar revenue and both can raise corporate and personal income taxes as well as levy taxes. If not well assessed, the shared occupancy of the tax sectors can easily trigger conflicts, and it is because of this that the federal and provincial states try as much as possible to cooperate in this sector through a set of agreements regarding tax collection. The Canada Revenue Agency takes the role of a standard tax collector in all the provinces apart from Quebec (Meekison 142). The federal standards are governed by the agreements that grant the provinces more freedom in designing their policies. Nevertheless, some provinces are considering the benefits of not being part of the contracts so that they can explicitly exercise their autonomy. From a general perspective, the mentioned agreement continues to promote a high degree of coordination the highly decentralized revenue-raising rule.

Irrespective of Canada’s decentralized tax system, there is a significant gap existing between the provinces’ expenditure responsibilities and their revenues (Bakvis and Skogstad 67). The Canadian provinces are different when it comes to the value of wealth that each province holds, and this is measured in per capita income. Therefore, it is necessary to understand and attend to the constitutional roles as they seek to raise their revenues. The fiscal transfers of the inter-government are a crucial part of the economy of the federal union and significant in understanding how the division of power exists in Canada today.

In Canada, there are always two crucial fiscal transfers, and both of them depend on the spending power of the federal. The first was the equalization payments that came into existence in 1957, and it was developed to ensure that every province has a comparable level of services (Waller, Harold et al. 249). The other mechanism is known as the redistribution, and it aims to utilize the spending power to provide that all the federal payments are under the jurisdiction of the provinces.

The last significant dimension in the economic policy relates to the ability to regulate trade and commerce. The federal parliament has the authority to institute laws referring to how the trade and commerce are administered (Kendall and Rekkas 1568). The Canadian courts thus make a politically decisive distinction between federal, interprovincial and interprovincial trade (Baier 71). There is a limited coordination among the provinces when it comes to regulating the commercial activities as a way of developing non-tariff barriers to trade between the provinces.

Arguments

Federalism, as seen in the discussion, helps in stabilizing the political and economic system of Canada. However, one of the counterarguments that have always been constant is that federalism in Canada encourages inequalities between the provinces. The argument mentioned above is because some states will still be spending more while others have more resources than others do thus affecting spending per capita. It also changes things such as taxes, welfare programs, and even health care programs across the country. The other common argument is that federalism promotes blockage of nationalist policies by the provinces and thus the regions can fight against the presence of particular federal laws by disputing them in courts. In extreme cases, some of the provinces might go out of their ways to enforce national laws. Conversely, they may also obstructs their enforcement. The last arguments are that the provinces will adversely compete against each other and thus reducing the number of advantages offered to the welfare recipient in comparison to the neighboring thus motivating undesirable relationships between the provinces.

Rebuttal to Counterargument

In any given nation, there will always be inequalities between the provinces or states and this is owed to the fact that resources, including natural, are never equally distributed throughout the country. Therefore, this natural phenomenon is beyond human control. The main benefit of this inequalities between states is that it encourages better relationship as the provinces will learn how to work together to share the limited pool. The blocking of the national policies by the provinces is not so much of a bad thing as long as it benefits the system of federalism. Having only a federal law, there would be no provinces that would challenge the existence of bad laws or attend to the special interest groups. Competition among the provinces may bring numerous benefits such as lowering of taxes and thus creating a conducive environment that encourages economic development at the national level.

Conclusion

Federalism is a system of governance that promotes division of authority among the states and jurisdiction between a minimum of two levels of government and it usually takes place between two or more levels of government that is recognized constitutionally. It can thus be perceived as the existence of autonomous units controlled by a single governing head that overlooks the administration of the units based on the developed agreements. As seen through the paper, the federalist government offers numerous advantages like protecting the nation tyranny while increasing disperse of power through the system that promotes autonomy and thus improving the efficiency and participation of every region in the nation. The altering policy agendas through the years has therefore, helped Canada define its state of federalism to a point whereby it positively develops the country.

Works Cited

Baier, Gerald. Courts and Federalism. UBC Press, 2006.

Bakvis, Herman, and Grace Darlene Skogstad. Canadian Federalism. Oxford University Press, 2012.

Banting, Keith G. “Federalism, Social Reform and the Spending Power.” Canadian Public Policy / Analyse De Politiques, vol. 14, 1988, pp. 81-86. 

Black, Edwin R., and Alan C. Cairns. “A Different Perspective on Canadian Federalism.” Canadian Public Administration/Administration Publique Du Canada, vol. 9, no. 1, 1966, pp. 27-44. 

Hail, Michael W. “The Crown and Canadian Federalism, By D. Michael Jackson.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism, vol. 47, no. 2, 2017, pp. e7-e7. 

Hardisty, Pamela. Publications of the Canadian Parliament. United States Historical Documents Institute, 1974.

James, Patrick, and Mark J. Kasoff. Canadian Studies in the New Millennium. University of Toronto Press, 2008.

Kendall, Chad, and Marie Rekkas. “Incumbency Advantages in the Canadian Parliament.” Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne D ‘économique, vol. 45, no. 4, 2012, pp. 1560-1585. 

Mahler, Gregory S. and Roman R. March. Canadian Politics. Dushkin/McGraw-Hill, 2000.

Mahler, Gregory S. “Canadian Federalism and the 1995 Referendum: A Perspective from Outside of Quebec.” American Review of Canadian Studies, vol. 25, no. 4, 1995, pp. 449-476. 

Meekison, J. Peter. Canadian Federalism. Methuen, 1980.

Pandey, Sanjay. “Lessons from Canadian Federalism.” International Studies, vol. 41, no. 4, 2004, pp. 430-433. 

Papillon, Martin. “Adapting Federalism: Indigenous Multilevel Governance in Canada and the United States.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism, vol. 42, no. 2, 2011, pp. 289-312. 

Smith, Jennifer. Federalism. UBC Press, 2014.

Waller, Harold et al. Canadian Federalism. University Press of America, 1988.