Decentralization
and multiculturalism
By David
Kilgour, M.P. Edmonton Southeast
Published in The Philippine
Canadian Times, February-March
1997
Current
political debate in Canada
centres around the devolution
of powers from the federal
government to the provinces
and the shifting of responsibility
to the provinces for the
management and funding for
the program that had previously
been the responsibility
of the government in Ottawa.
One important issue here
is the place of multiculturalism
programs in the context
of such devolution, and
what possible impact such
a devolution could have
on our official policy on
multiculturalism across
Canada.
I would
maintain that cultural heterogeneity
constitutes a very meaningful
part of what Canada is today.
The interaction of our many
cultures has strengthened
the soul of Canada and is
an enriching element in
our national character.
Denise Chong,
author of The Concubine's
Children, a finalist for
the Governor General's literary
award and a Canadian of
Asian descent, shares thought
on what it means to be a
Canadian: "What sets
Canadian society apart from
others is that ours is an
inclusive society …
Canadian citizenship recognizes
differences. It praises
diversity. It is what we
as Canadians choose to have
in common with each other.
It is a bridge between those
who left something to make
a new home here and those
born here. What keeps
the bridge strong is
tolerance, fairness and
compassion." She adds:
"My own sense of being
a Canadian is one of belonging.
I belong to a community
of values … The life
I lead begins before and
lingers after my time."
Ken Coates,
a West Coast academic has
written: "It means
that we can proclaim proudly,
joyously, that we live in
one of the finest, most
gentle, most caring, prosperous,
progressive societies that
has ever existed on this
earth. Sadly, it also means
that we will not proclaim
this self evident truth
and that we will, instead
focus on our shortcomings
and point to our continuing
weaknesses. May it ever
be thus for it is this ability
to find fault that has driven
our country to become what
it is today."
Some current
realities are dictating
that a debate takes place
regarding the priorities
of Canadian society and
how we will approach the
new century.
Rebalancing
Federation
Change appears
badly needed in our federal-provincial
legislative practices and
the spending habits
of our federal government.
A national consensus now
seems to exist that Ottawa
should not use its federal
spending power to impose
its priorities and control
("The Kremlin Complex").
For some, decentralization
is part of the solution
to our national unity problems.
Professor
Thomas Courchene, recognized
as a leading expert in economics
and the study of Canadian
federalism, offered an interesting
contribution here in his
recent paper, Access:
A convention on the Canadian
Economic and Social Systems.
He argues that our current
approach to social programs,
in which Ottawa unilaterally
enforces national social
standards, is no longer
appropriate. Due to its
repeated cuts to social
transfers over the last
decade, Ottawa is losing
its fiscal and moral authority
to enforce unilaterally
its standards.
He adds
that the federal government's
failure to work in partnership
with the provinces has resulted
in a less integrated Canadian
economy than is desirable.
As an alternative to the
current approach, he proposes
an accord between Ottawa
and the provincial governments
that would clarify and redistribute
powers between the two orders
of government. Access calls
for the provinces to resume
sole control over the design
and delivery of health,
welfare and education, as
well as over labour market
training. The provinces,
in turn, would commit themselves
to removing all internal
trade barriers, thus fully
implementing the agreement
on internal trade which
they initiated in 1994 and
have essentially ignored
since.
Fighting
its deficit/debt is already
forcing Ottawa to reduce
its cash transfers to the
provinces. Last year, it
transferred $18.3 billion;
by 1997-98, it will decline
to $12.5 billion. Courchene
argues: "From this
perspective Access acquires
a quite different rationale,
namely, how in the face
of this decentralization
do we maintain the integrity
of our social and economic
union?"
Courchene
concludes: " Decentralization
… is anything but a
'free lunch' for the provinces.
For them, the challenge
will be to show individual
Canadians that they can
take the national interest
into consideration on their
policies. Thus, in pursuing
their own interests in the
wake of their own increase
in autonomy (but not in
revenues), the provinces
must be prepared, along
with Ottawa, to play a much
larger role in creating
'national' programs or national
public goods. Potentially,
this is a very much positive-sum
game, since the post-war
approach of relying on Ottawa
to deliver the national
component of policy is decidedly
inferior to an approach
that combines both vertical
(top-down) and horizontal
(bottom-up) coordination
and integration. The underlying
message is, nonetheless,
clear: "if the provinces
fail in this critical endeavor,
Canadians almost certainly
will demand that the pendulum
of power swing back to the centre."
"National
Standards"
In view
of the federal government
cuts to social program transfers,
there seems to be growing
resentment among at least
some provinces, struggling
to control their own deficits,
towards Ottawa's insistence
on maintaining national
standards as Ottawa sees
them.
There is
however, a widespread and
deep attachment among Canadians
generally, including my
own constituents, to the
belief that, regardless
of their place of residence,
all of us should have access
to approximately the same
level of social services.
Simultaneously, many Canadians
are becoming more concerned
that all national standards
could become a victim of
decentralization.
Roger Gibbins,
chair of political science
at the University of Calgary,
asserts that proponents
of decentralization maintain
that national standards
need not be federally imposed
standards. Instead of enforcing
them through acts of Parliament
they could be imposed through
intergovernmental agreements,
which could, but not necessarily,
include Ottawa. In fact
provincial agreements have
cooperated in the past.
But would such arrangements
maintain meaningful "national
standards?" Gibbins
believes that the very logic
of decentralization works
against interprovincially
imposed national standards.
At their August 1996 annual
conference, all nine of
the English-speaking premiers
signed an agreement to work
with the federal government
on new "national guidelines,"
as opposed to "federal
standards," for health
and social programs.
Conclusion
Recently,
23 South African parliamentarians
from seven political parties
visited Ottawa to see how
our parliamentary democracy
functions. In a private
conversation, one of them,
who has lived in several
countries, told me that
South Africans look to Canada
as a bilingual multicultural
model that works.
"If
," he said, "you
fragment, what hope is there
for the rest of us around
the world to stay together?"
By way of
conclusion. it would appear
to me that we are facing
fundamental questions about
the future character of
Canadian society: Are we
as a people prepared to
decentralize legislative
authority to the provinces,
and to what degree are we
prepared to undertake such
a decentralization? Are
we prepared to accommodate
on this and other issues
all the regions of Canada,
including both the ‘have’
and the ‘have not’
provinces? Finally, what
would the potential impact
of decentralization be on
the future funding of multicultural
activities and programs
in Canada? The debate surrounding
these questions will determine
the future character of
our nation, and it is imperative
for all segments of our
society to participate in
this debate.
|
