Flexible federalism.

As former Saskatchewan Premier Allan Blakeney has said: "Canada is not a country where one size fits all," so we have developed a complicated structure of national and regional government to accommodate the differing needs of Canadians

The Fathers of Confederation had a dream. They wanted to create a united country that stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific across the northern part of the American continent.

If the dream was to become reality, then railways would have to be built to tie the nation together. But, building such a huge project was quite beyond the resources of the colonies that existed in British North America in the 1860s. However, if the colonies united then the financing and building of the railway might be possible.

Back then, just as it is today, British North America was a community of regions -- the Atlantic colonies, mostly French-speaking Canada East, and wealthy Canada West. They were divided by geography, by race, by religion, by economic power. Few people wanted to see their regional interests swallowed up in a union under one government. So, if the colonies were to unite to gain strength they had to look for an arrangement that would protect their regional differences. They found their solution in a federal union.

Under this system, the powers needed to maintain a single, large state would be given to a central government. At the same time, matters of more local importance could be looked after by provincial governments. By 1864, the leaders of the British North American colonies were ready to sit down and negotiate.

In October 1864, they met in Quebec City; delegates from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Canada East (Quebec), and Canada West (Ontario). For two weeks, they made speeches and debated issues. At times, voices were raised and tables thumped. But in the end, they passed 72 resolutions; the blueprint for the new nation of Canada.

As they discussed and voted, many of the delegates were thinking about the American Civil War (1861-65). There was a belief that the terrible bloodletting that had taken place could have been avoided if the Americans had had a strong central government. John A. Macdonald in particular believed the power of individual American states was a cause of the war. Macdonald wrote many of the 72 resolutions himself and was very persuasive in getting them accepted. So, the plan for the creation of Canada stressed the power of the central government. The provinces were given exclusive authority over 16 areas. The federal government was handed 29 areas of responsibility. All the powers that were left over or not mentioned, called residual powers, belonged to Ottawa.

Sir John A. Macdonald's legacy, the British North America Act, has been passed down to us today; but it has changed along the way. And, in the years since Confederation in 1867 there have been only a few when Canadians have not debated the assignment of federal and provincial powers.

Some angry exchanges have taken place over these powers. When the two sides could not agree the issue was sent to London, England for a decision. Canada was still a colony and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had to referee the disputes. In the early days, the Privy Council tended to side with the federal government. Later, the decisions went in favour of the provinces and federal powers were nibbled away. Ottawa even lost its "residual powers" except in times of emergency, such as war.

Following the First World War (1914-18), governments in Canada began stepping into an entirely new area for them -- social services. If the wise old men of the Privy Council had respected the intentions of the wise old men of the Quebec Conference there would have been few problems. With its residual powers intact, the federal government could have brought in a single, national pension plan, or an unemployment insurance program to help the victims of the Great Depression (the Privy Council in London said the Great Depression was not an emergency!).

The result was a patchwork quilt of programs. The richer provinces developed better social services than the poorer ones. But, all provinces were tripped up by another clause in the British North America Act. Ottawa had been given most of the taxation powers. The Fathers of Confederation had seen this as essential to building a strong, national government.

Through its meddling, the Privy Council had messed everything up.

Ottawa now had the money but no power. The provinces had the power but no money. Clearly, the federal system was badly out of balance. So, in 1937, Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King dealt with the problem in true Canadian fashion; he appointed a Royal Commission.

In 1940, the Rowell-Sirois Report was published. It recommended a sort of refederation for the country by restoring the balance of rights and responsibilities the Fathers of Confederation had designed.

Ottawa would be given sole responsibility for essential national services such as unemployment insurance and pensions. A program of National Adjustment Grants would make payments to poorer provinces. This would ensure that all educational and social services were brought up to a standard, minimum level. The federal government would have exclusive rights over personal and corporate income tax as well as inheritance duties. Ottawa would regain its national planning role.

Ontario, supported by Alberta, B.C., and Quebec, led a ferocious opposition to this rebalancing of federal-provincial powers. But, the ambitions of these wealthier provinces fell victim to external forces. The Second World War (1939-45) allowed Ottawa to use its emergency powers. Bit by bit, many of the recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois Report were put in place.

When the end of the war came, Canada a entered a period of enormous prosperity. With full wallets and larders Canadians seemed less ready to squabble over which level of government did what. An era of cooperative federalism began with Canada in total control of its own affairs.

In 1931, the Statute of Westminster had ended Canada's colonial status. The Supreme Court of Canada was now the place where decisions on federal and provincial powers were to be made. But, a third-party decision on such a touchy subject has come to be seen as a last resort.

Once the Supreme Court is involved, a decision one way or the other is going to be made. This means that there's a very good chance that at least one and maybe both of the parties involved in a dispute are going to come away unhappy. So, again in true Canadian fashion, the goal of politicians in most federal-provincial relations became compromise. This is achieved in several ways.

* Consultation and agreement. Ottawa and the provinces sit down and discuss an issue. Everybody gives a little until there is a deal they can all live with.

* Concurrent legislation. The federal government passes a law with the provision that it doesn't take effect until the province has also legislated it into effect.

* Advisory opinions. Instead of passing a law and waiting for someone to challenge it, a draft law is sent to the Supreme Court for an opinion. The court advises on whether the proposed law might be intra vires (within the powers) or ultra vires (outside the powers) of whoever drafted it.

But, the post-war federal-provincial harmony didn't last. By the mid-1950s, the familiar quarrelling about money and powers started to reappear. Ottawa used its own tax money to virtually force the provinces to adopt Ottawa's program standards, particularly in health and welfare. Also, as governments became involved in new areas, Ottawa started up parallel programs. So, we got a federal presence in areas of provincial responsibility: they included manpower training, the environment, mining, forestry, tourism and even, at one time, urban affairs. This activity really muddied the division of powers.

For four decades, the pattern has remained much the same. The wealthier provinces, led by Alberta and Ontario, have worked to cut into the role of the federal government. Smaller provinces, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland to the fore here, see Ottawa more as a protector than an intruder. All provinces have been happy to see federal cheques arriving in the mail, but they get miffed when Ottawa tells them how to run their programs.

Over the years, there have been several attempts to re-jig the relationship. The Meech Lake Accord of 1987 would have changed the balance. Provinces would have had more control over immigration and the Senate. Part of the Accord also dealt with any new schemes Ottawa might introduce, such as a national day-care program or a minimum guaranteed annual income. Meech said that provinces could opt out of such services as long as their alternative programs "conformed to the national objectives." Provinces could get out and still receive reasonable compensation from Ottawa to fund their own programs.

Former federal cabinet minister Donald Johnston said that Meech Lake would turn the federal government into "a coordination unit for the provinces. Under this framework, the federal government may be likened to a condominium manager with responsibility delegated by the owners to take care of the common property, cut the grass, remove the snow, and clean the lobby and hallways."

Huge numbers of people agreed with Mr. Johnson and the Meech Lake Accord was shot down in flames. The defeat of the Accord ushered in a period of frostier than usual federal-provincial relations.

When the Liberals of Jean Chretien came to power in Ottawa in 1993, they talked of thawing out the relationship. Prime Minister Chretien spoke of "devolution." The word means the transfer of powers to another level of government; in this case, federal powers being handed to the provinces.

To a large extent, the province-friendly approach was forced on the federal government. By years of overspending, Ottawa had put itself horribly in debt. There had to be drastic cutbacks in spending, and one of the areas that was going to be hardest hit was transfers to the provinces. Quite naturally, the provinces felt that if the federal government was going to take the scissors to the cheques it sent them then Ottawa could hardly expect to dictate how they were going to run their programs.

For the first time in history, the federal government began to treat the provinces as equal partners in Confederation. For the provinces this is one of those good-news-bad-news things. The good news is they get to exercise their powers fully. The bad news is that the faucet on the money pipeline from Ottawa has been tightened down.

With the money supply reduced, the provinces were given the dirty work to do. Right across the country, hospitals have been closed, welfare payments slashed, classroom sizes increased, and a host of other services changed. The upside for the provinces is an increase in their power and the ability to tailor programs more closely to the needs of their populations. Social policy expert Ken Battle calls this "a loosier-goosier federalism." Mr. Battle heads the Caledon Institute for Social Policy; he says "...it's not conditional federalism, it's not carrot-and-stick federalism, but the federal government is still playing a role in social policy."

The Federal Minister of Human Resources is Pierre Pettigrew. He talks about a maturing Canada in which the provinces take their rightful place in delivering social programs. The federal government's function is to use the tax system to redistribute income. But, even here Ottawa is relaxing its grip. In December 1997 Finance Minister Paul Martin agreed to let nine provinces design their own systems for personal income tax (Quebec already has its own system).

Not everybody jumps for joy at the thought of this reduced role for Ottawa. There are critics a plenty, especially on the political left. They shudder at the thought of social programs being placed in the hands of political right-wingers such as Ralph Klein in Alberta or Mike Harris in Ontario. They fear that the conservative political and economic policies so much in favour in the late 1990s are turning Canada into a United States look-alike. A country where the regions are more powerful than the central government and where social programs are minimal.

One critic is Larry Brown, Chair of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. In a 1997 speech he complained that these fundamental changes are taking place without the consent of the people: "The people of Canada didn't all of a sudden decide they wanted a weaker federal government. They didn't suddenly develop a preference for a country fragmented into 10 provincial fiefdoms."

Whether the voters like it or not, they are getting a system of more flexible federalism. Again in December 1997, nine premiers and Prime Minister Chretien agreed to create a new "social union" (as usual, Quebec refused to cooperate).

The idea is somewhat vague and confused only months after the agreement. It seems to suggest it will improve the harmonization of programs and make it easier for workers to move from one place to another, as has been done in the European Union. However, La Presse columnist Lysiane Gagnon doesn't see much chance for success, at least in the short term: "For [social union] to happen," she writes, "a lot of cooperation and a minimum of good faith is required. Alas, those are the two ingredients most flagrantly absent from Canadian politics today, and they will not exist until the Quebec-Canada dispute is settled."

And, a veteran of scores of federal-provincial skirmishes is not yet ready to pop the champagne corks and start celebrating the arrival of the age of harmony. Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow says: "I'd like to think this is how federalism should work. I can only hope it's a new model. But, I'm reserving judgement on whether this is a sea change. I'll believe it when I see it."

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson wrote in 1997 that "the vast majority of Canadians do not care a fig which government renders what services as long as they are properly delivered and appropriately financed."

2. Architect Jack Diamond says our federal-provincial structure was created when Canada was a mostly rural society. Now that 80% of Canadians live in urban areas, the existing structure no longer serves us well. Frequently, at the provincial level, the number of rural MLAs is disproportionately larger than the urban representatives. Mr. Diamond suggests a federation of city states would be a better distribution of power. Social services would be administered by municipal governments and rural areas would be looked after by provincial governments that would be wards of the cities. Use Mr. Diamond's ideas as the basis for a debate.

3. Open a clipping file on the search for a "Canadian social union." Have students contribute news reports on the issue and periodically review the contents of the file.

RELATED ARTICLE: FEDERALISM ROLL CALL

The following countries are federations: Australia, Austria, Argentina, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Micronesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, St. Kitts and Nevis, Switzerland, United States, and Venezuela.

Louis-Joseph Papineau led a failed rebellion against British rule in Lower Canada in 1837; the uprising helped intensify the search for a more workable government for Canada.