oread
新手上路
- 注册
- 2002-01-24
- 消息
- 20,275
- 荣誉分数
- 16
- 声望点数
- 0
Rediscovering the spirit of federalism
By JEAN CHAREST
Globe and Mail Update
POSTED AT 2:16 AM EST Tuesday, Nov 9, 2004
The election of my government in April of 2003 was widely received by Canadians as a challenge to those who would separate Quebec from Canada. What may not have been as apparent is that the election of my government is also a challenge to those who seek to maintain the status quo within the federation. The election of my government is, in fact, a challenge to all those who have chosen to deny our common history.
Canada is still young, still growing. We are yet reaching for our potential. And Canada will continue to grow as long as we remember and respect the basic tenets of our foundation.
Canadians made a decision very early in their history, a choice that over time has come to define the very essence of who we are.
Our ancestors decided, right from the start, to build a country based on the right to speak a different language, to pray in a different way, to apply a different legal system, based on the French Civil Code, to belong to a different culture and to enable that culture to flourish.
The Quebec Act of 1774, passed into law more than 200 years ago, almost a hundred years before Confederation, is in this respect the most fundamental document in Canadian history. It is the foundation upon which the Canadian partnership was originally built.
Its spirit defined this country from its very inception. It represents one of the most enlightened decisions ever made for Canada.
Canadians should reflect upon this choice that was made so early in our history. We should reflect on how it defines us, how the French language and culture and the presence in the federation of a French-speaking province has allowed Canadians as a whole to extend their influence and play a greater role in the world community.
In the past, there have been some in this country who have argued that the recognition of two official languages and cultural identities was an obstacle to the development of a common purpose as a country, a common vision based on shared values. In the short term, they may have thought they were right. But we know today how wrong they were. Little did they suspect that their children would live in a brave new global community.
That their children would be called upon, if they wished to fulfill their potential in that 21st-century world, to learn to speak not just one, but several other languages if possible.
Canadians have an inbuilt sensitivity to a world where diversity is the norm. Canadians, because of their history, do not take for granted that others think the way they do, that others see things the way they do.
In this regard, Canada is a country that has prepared itself better than any other country I know of to face the challenges of the 21st century. Not to recognize that simple fact would be a great loss.
For Quebeckers, Canada is a success precisely because of the space the country has made for our language, culture and identity, not only to survive, but to flourish and thrive to the point where our artists, academics and entrepreneurs are recognized and celebrated all over the world.
Looking to the future, a number of important trends have taken hold with regard to the way in which federalism is evolving.
Among them, the trend toward co-decision-making and co-management between the federal and provincial levels is already a reflection of Canada's coming of age as a country.
To make this possible, however, requires that each level of government has a clear understanding of its role, of where its intervention can be useful and effective and, in the end, that it be fully accountable to the people for its decisions.
In other words, respecting the jurisdictions of governments is an essential condition to the success of this country.
In 1865, George Brown, one of the Fathers of Confederation, said: "We had either to take a Federal union or drop the negotiation. Not only our friends from Lower Canada are against it, but so were most of the delegates from the Maritime Provinces. There was but one choice open to us - federal union or nothing."
In Brown's analysis, the only Canada possible was a federal Canada. Sir John A. Macdonald supported that view with this statement on Feb. 6, 1865:
"Now, as regards the comparative advantages of a legislative or a federal union, I have never hesitated to state my own opinions. I have again and again stated in the House that, if practicable, I thought a legislative union would be preferable.
"I have always contended that if we could agree to have one government and one Parliament legislating for the whole of these peoples, it would be the best, the cheapest, the most vigorous, and the strongest system of government we could adopt.
"But, on looking at the subject in the conference, and discussing the matter as we did, most unreservedly, and with a desire to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, we found that such a system was impracticable.
"In the first place, it would not meet the assent of the people of Lower Canada, because they felt that in their peculiar position - being in a minority, with a different language, nationality, and religion from the majority - in case of a junction with the provinces, their institutions and their laws might be assailed, and their ancestral associations, on which they prided themselves, attacked and prejudiced.
"It was found that any proposition which involved the absorption of the individuality of Lower Canada, if I may use the expression, would not be received, with favour by her people.
"We found too that though their people speak the same language and enjoy the same system of law of the people of Upper Canada, a system founded on the common law of England, there was as great a disinclination on the part of the various Maritimes provinces to lose their individuality, as separate political organizations, as we observed in the case of Lower Canada herself.
"Therefore, we were forced to the conclusion that we must either abandon the idea of union altogether, or devise a system of union in which the separate provincial organizations would be in some degree preserved. So that those who were, like myself, in favour of a legislative union, were obliged to modify their views and accept the project of a federal union as the only scheme practicable, even for the Maritimes provinces."
Several years later, in 1871, Wilfrid Laurier added familiar words to the Canadian debate:
"If the federal system is to avoid becoming a hollow concept, if it is to produce the results called for, the legislatures must be independent, not just in the law, but also in fact. The local legislature must especially be completely sheltered from control by the federal legislature.
"If in any way the federal legislature exercises the slightest control over the local legislature, then the reality is no longer a federal union, but rather a legislative union in federal form."
The debate over Canadian federalism is to Canadian politics what Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is to music: a timeless classic.
I say that with a smile, but that is also the nature of federations. That's what makes them strong: Federalism is dynamic and constantly adapting to the demands of its time.
What is a federation, after all? By definition, it is a partnership of two levels of government, which are each sovereign in their jurisdictions as defined by a constitution.
The basis upon which state responsibilities are shared is not haphazard. The division is made according to priorities such as the promotion of diversity, the need for democratic checks and balances, and the notion of subsidiarity: in other words, which government is in the best position to provide a given service?
A federation is not hierarchical such as in a unitary state like France. In Canada, the provinces are not accountable to the federal government. Each government is accountable to its electorate in its own jurisdiction.
I am accountable to Quebeckers for the actions of my government in its jurisdiction. I am not accountable to the federal government.
The federal government is accountable to Canadians for its actions within its own jurisdiction. It is not accountable to the Quebec government.
That is a federation - by nature a plural and asymmetric political system. Each government must be free to act within its jurisdiction to fulfill its proper responsibilities.
Membership in a federal state does not imply that we must fit a single mould. We are each members of a community that shares a specific geographical space as well as certain values, such as the respect for each partner's differences.
The message I want to leave you with today is that Canada must renew the spirit of federalism and turn away from its centralist temptations. The future of the Canadian federation is, after all, federalism. Let me say it another way: The danger to our federation is not that Quebec wants to govern in its own way; it is the view that all provinces and territories are the same.
Five principles should animate the spirit of federalism in Canada. Indeed, these five principles are not only valid for governing by federation, but also for governments around the globe in the 21st century.
Respect:
Healthy co-operation cannot exist without a profound respect shared among partners in the federation: respect for each other's jurisdictions, respect for each other's choices, respect for each other's expertise and abilities.
The Quebec government and other provincial governments are not subordinate to the government in Canada. And the federal government is not the supreme guardian of the common good. In a federation, each partner guards the common good within its own jurisdiction.
And the judge of how we do as guardians of the common good is not the federal government but rather our citizens.
Flexibility:
Homogeneity may have been the utopia of the 20th century. The 21st century, however, will be guided by flexibility, the respect for differences, and asymmetry.
Ideally, this will be the case around the world. It is true in Canada.
Our country was constituted federally specifically to establish an asymmetrical system, to allow for differences, to respect the unique characteristics of each partner across our immense geographical territory. Indeed, each province joining Confederation was treated differently.
Rule of law:
Flexibility does not imply the absence of rules. We live in a legal society and that should continue. In Canada, our actions must adapt to the law and the law to our actions. When principles disagree, the resulting conflict can be taken to the courts for settlement according to the priorities we have put into law.
A mature legal debate is often better than a never-ending political dispute. Court decisions are occasionally the best way to advance a political issue, such as the current question of parental leaves.
However, the Quebec government uses this recourse only when necessary.
A legal state is one which can rely on the courts for clarification.
Reconciling law with action also implies that we can change the rules when they no longer reflect our values as a society.
Balance:
Long-term balance cannot exist in a federation if one level of government is in a position that denigrates the relationship between the two levels of government.
In Canada, we are experiencing fiscal imbalance. Not something we are fabricating for political mileage, but rather a reality that has been acknowledged by all partners in the Council of the Federation, by three federal political parties, and by a majority of members of Parliament.
In the 1990s, balancing the federal budget coincided with diminishing provincial budgets.
The federal government solved its own problems by cutting transfers to the provinces.
According to a Conference Board of Canada study commissioned by the federal government, federal surpluses between 2004-2005 and 2014-2015, over 10 years, will reach $166-billion.
The federal government is collecting more revenue than it needs, while the provinces and territories, several of which are already in deficit, are receiving less revenue than they need.
The revenues and responsibilities of each are out of balance.
But when the federal government responds with "Just raise your taxes," it ignores both the reality and history of this country.
The reality is that taxpayers are funding both levels of government, and their ability to pay is limited.
The history is that our federal government has grown by unilaterally taking a greater share of the taxes on Quebeckers and Canadians.
In a federation where solidarity is a fundamental value, such as in Canada, we must ensure that a fiscal balance exists across different regions of the country - while respecting the principles of federalism.
In Canada, we have an excellent way of redistributing wealth between federal partners to ensure that each government is able to provide quality services based on comparable tax levels for citizens across all regions of the country.
Equalization isn't just a program of the federal government. It is part of our Constitution. It is a constitutional obligation.
Co-operation:
Today, both goods and people are very mobile. At the same time, we are facing more and more inter-regional and international problems such as pollution, public security, and infectious disease.
We can no longer govern as in the days when a business's competitor was located across the street. Interdependence is a fact of globalization.
Governing today requires co-operation. And co-operating in a federal environment means working together on common issues while recognizing that each member of the federation has its unique characteristics and interests.
In Quebec, for instance, we emphasize the need for provincial participation at the international level and on international treaty negotiations that affect our jurisdictions.
Other provinces share this demand. It is right and it makes sense. Nobody should challenge the fact that Canada is stronger when all its constituents can express themselves.
Let's remember that while Ottawa would like to sign all the treaties it wishes, it cannot implement those in areas of provincial jurisdictions. Co-operation is required.
In fact, we believe that when Quebec is the sole government responsible for implementing a particular international agreement, it should clearly be the one making the international commitment.
It is up to Quebec to decide whether or not to add to its internal obligations through international agreements: A Quebec jurisdiction at home remains a Quebec jurisdiction in international relations.
That being said, the various Canadian governments have always taken care to exercise their responsibilities while respecting Canadian foreign policy. That is what I mean by co-operation.
Co-operation is also our Agreement on Internal Trade signed by all provinces and the federal government; it's the work we're doing to harmonize securities regulations; and it's the provinces working together to form a common front in our efforts to improve health funding.
The Council of the Federation was founded on this principle of respectful co-operation.
One of the council's goals is to promote "relations between governments which are based on respect for the Constitution and recognition of the diversity within the federation."
In the preamble to the agreement on the council, we expressed recognition of the importance of "accepting that there are differences among the provinces and territories and that governments may have different policy priorities and preferences."
The Council of the Federation plays an important role in Canadian federalism.
For the first time in a long time, the regions, provinces and territories have their own common voice. Because, let's be honest, the Senate is no longer fully exercising its role.
These five principles are required to counter our slide toward a unitary state and to revive the essence of federalism in Canada.
Renewing the spirit of federalism requires a model that responds to the development of each society within the federation.
Canada must respect the spirit of federalism for the sake of all citizens. This spirit of co-operation, openness and acceptance of differences is what we all need to meet our challenges with success.
I accept that challenge defending the interest of Quebeckers with conviction and confidence.
For I believe in Quebec. I believe in Canada.
Jean Charest, Premier of Quebec, delivered the Symons Lecture yesterday in Charlottetown on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Confederation Centre of the Arts. This article is taken from those remarks.
© 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
By JEAN CHAREST
Globe and Mail Update
POSTED AT 2:16 AM EST Tuesday, Nov 9, 2004
The election of my government in April of 2003 was widely received by Canadians as a challenge to those who would separate Quebec from Canada. What may not have been as apparent is that the election of my government is also a challenge to those who seek to maintain the status quo within the federation. The election of my government is, in fact, a challenge to all those who have chosen to deny our common history.
Canada is still young, still growing. We are yet reaching for our potential. And Canada will continue to grow as long as we remember and respect the basic tenets of our foundation.
Canadians made a decision very early in their history, a choice that over time has come to define the very essence of who we are.
Our ancestors decided, right from the start, to build a country based on the right to speak a different language, to pray in a different way, to apply a different legal system, based on the French Civil Code, to belong to a different culture and to enable that culture to flourish.
The Quebec Act of 1774, passed into law more than 200 years ago, almost a hundred years before Confederation, is in this respect the most fundamental document in Canadian history. It is the foundation upon which the Canadian partnership was originally built.
Its spirit defined this country from its very inception. It represents one of the most enlightened decisions ever made for Canada.
Canadians should reflect upon this choice that was made so early in our history. We should reflect on how it defines us, how the French language and culture and the presence in the federation of a French-speaking province has allowed Canadians as a whole to extend their influence and play a greater role in the world community.
In the past, there have been some in this country who have argued that the recognition of two official languages and cultural identities was an obstacle to the development of a common purpose as a country, a common vision based on shared values. In the short term, they may have thought they were right. But we know today how wrong they were. Little did they suspect that their children would live in a brave new global community.
That their children would be called upon, if they wished to fulfill their potential in that 21st-century world, to learn to speak not just one, but several other languages if possible.
Canadians have an inbuilt sensitivity to a world where diversity is the norm. Canadians, because of their history, do not take for granted that others think the way they do, that others see things the way they do.
In this regard, Canada is a country that has prepared itself better than any other country I know of to face the challenges of the 21st century. Not to recognize that simple fact would be a great loss.
For Quebeckers, Canada is a success precisely because of the space the country has made for our language, culture and identity, not only to survive, but to flourish and thrive to the point where our artists, academics and entrepreneurs are recognized and celebrated all over the world.
Looking to the future, a number of important trends have taken hold with regard to the way in which federalism is evolving.
Among them, the trend toward co-decision-making and co-management between the federal and provincial levels is already a reflection of Canada's coming of age as a country.
To make this possible, however, requires that each level of government has a clear understanding of its role, of where its intervention can be useful and effective and, in the end, that it be fully accountable to the people for its decisions.
In other words, respecting the jurisdictions of governments is an essential condition to the success of this country.
In 1865, George Brown, one of the Fathers of Confederation, said: "We had either to take a Federal union or drop the negotiation. Not only our friends from Lower Canada are against it, but so were most of the delegates from the Maritime Provinces. There was but one choice open to us - federal union or nothing."
In Brown's analysis, the only Canada possible was a federal Canada. Sir John A. Macdonald supported that view with this statement on Feb. 6, 1865:
"Now, as regards the comparative advantages of a legislative or a federal union, I have never hesitated to state my own opinions. I have again and again stated in the House that, if practicable, I thought a legislative union would be preferable.
"I have always contended that if we could agree to have one government and one Parliament legislating for the whole of these peoples, it would be the best, the cheapest, the most vigorous, and the strongest system of government we could adopt.
"But, on looking at the subject in the conference, and discussing the matter as we did, most unreservedly, and with a desire to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, we found that such a system was impracticable.
"In the first place, it would not meet the assent of the people of Lower Canada, because they felt that in their peculiar position - being in a minority, with a different language, nationality, and religion from the majority - in case of a junction with the provinces, their institutions and their laws might be assailed, and their ancestral associations, on which they prided themselves, attacked and prejudiced.
"It was found that any proposition which involved the absorption of the individuality of Lower Canada, if I may use the expression, would not be received, with favour by her people.
"We found too that though their people speak the same language and enjoy the same system of law of the people of Upper Canada, a system founded on the common law of England, there was as great a disinclination on the part of the various Maritimes provinces to lose their individuality, as separate political organizations, as we observed in the case of Lower Canada herself.
"Therefore, we were forced to the conclusion that we must either abandon the idea of union altogether, or devise a system of union in which the separate provincial organizations would be in some degree preserved. So that those who were, like myself, in favour of a legislative union, were obliged to modify their views and accept the project of a federal union as the only scheme practicable, even for the Maritimes provinces."
Several years later, in 1871, Wilfrid Laurier added familiar words to the Canadian debate:
"If the federal system is to avoid becoming a hollow concept, if it is to produce the results called for, the legislatures must be independent, not just in the law, but also in fact. The local legislature must especially be completely sheltered from control by the federal legislature.
"If in any way the federal legislature exercises the slightest control over the local legislature, then the reality is no longer a federal union, but rather a legislative union in federal form."
The debate over Canadian federalism is to Canadian politics what Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is to music: a timeless classic.
I say that with a smile, but that is also the nature of federations. That's what makes them strong: Federalism is dynamic and constantly adapting to the demands of its time.
What is a federation, after all? By definition, it is a partnership of two levels of government, which are each sovereign in their jurisdictions as defined by a constitution.
The basis upon which state responsibilities are shared is not haphazard. The division is made according to priorities such as the promotion of diversity, the need for democratic checks and balances, and the notion of subsidiarity: in other words, which government is in the best position to provide a given service?
A federation is not hierarchical such as in a unitary state like France. In Canada, the provinces are not accountable to the federal government. Each government is accountable to its electorate in its own jurisdiction.
I am accountable to Quebeckers for the actions of my government in its jurisdiction. I am not accountable to the federal government.
The federal government is accountable to Canadians for its actions within its own jurisdiction. It is not accountable to the Quebec government.
That is a federation - by nature a plural and asymmetric political system. Each government must be free to act within its jurisdiction to fulfill its proper responsibilities.
Membership in a federal state does not imply that we must fit a single mould. We are each members of a community that shares a specific geographical space as well as certain values, such as the respect for each partner's differences.
The message I want to leave you with today is that Canada must renew the spirit of federalism and turn away from its centralist temptations. The future of the Canadian federation is, after all, federalism. Let me say it another way: The danger to our federation is not that Quebec wants to govern in its own way; it is the view that all provinces and territories are the same.
Five principles should animate the spirit of federalism in Canada. Indeed, these five principles are not only valid for governing by federation, but also for governments around the globe in the 21st century.
Respect:
Healthy co-operation cannot exist without a profound respect shared among partners in the federation: respect for each other's jurisdictions, respect for each other's choices, respect for each other's expertise and abilities.
The Quebec government and other provincial governments are not subordinate to the government in Canada. And the federal government is not the supreme guardian of the common good. In a federation, each partner guards the common good within its own jurisdiction.
And the judge of how we do as guardians of the common good is not the federal government but rather our citizens.
Flexibility:
Homogeneity may have been the utopia of the 20th century. The 21st century, however, will be guided by flexibility, the respect for differences, and asymmetry.
Ideally, this will be the case around the world. It is true in Canada.
Our country was constituted federally specifically to establish an asymmetrical system, to allow for differences, to respect the unique characteristics of each partner across our immense geographical territory. Indeed, each province joining Confederation was treated differently.
Rule of law:
Flexibility does not imply the absence of rules. We live in a legal society and that should continue. In Canada, our actions must adapt to the law and the law to our actions. When principles disagree, the resulting conflict can be taken to the courts for settlement according to the priorities we have put into law.
A mature legal debate is often better than a never-ending political dispute. Court decisions are occasionally the best way to advance a political issue, such as the current question of parental leaves.
However, the Quebec government uses this recourse only when necessary.
A legal state is one which can rely on the courts for clarification.
Reconciling law with action also implies that we can change the rules when they no longer reflect our values as a society.
Balance:
Long-term balance cannot exist in a federation if one level of government is in a position that denigrates the relationship between the two levels of government.
In Canada, we are experiencing fiscal imbalance. Not something we are fabricating for political mileage, but rather a reality that has been acknowledged by all partners in the Council of the Federation, by three federal political parties, and by a majority of members of Parliament.
In the 1990s, balancing the federal budget coincided with diminishing provincial budgets.
The federal government solved its own problems by cutting transfers to the provinces.
According to a Conference Board of Canada study commissioned by the federal government, federal surpluses between 2004-2005 and 2014-2015, over 10 years, will reach $166-billion.
The federal government is collecting more revenue than it needs, while the provinces and territories, several of which are already in deficit, are receiving less revenue than they need.
The revenues and responsibilities of each are out of balance.
But when the federal government responds with "Just raise your taxes," it ignores both the reality and history of this country.
The reality is that taxpayers are funding both levels of government, and their ability to pay is limited.
The history is that our federal government has grown by unilaterally taking a greater share of the taxes on Quebeckers and Canadians.
In a federation where solidarity is a fundamental value, such as in Canada, we must ensure that a fiscal balance exists across different regions of the country - while respecting the principles of federalism.
In Canada, we have an excellent way of redistributing wealth between federal partners to ensure that each government is able to provide quality services based on comparable tax levels for citizens across all regions of the country.
Equalization isn't just a program of the federal government. It is part of our Constitution. It is a constitutional obligation.
Co-operation:
Today, both goods and people are very mobile. At the same time, we are facing more and more inter-regional and international problems such as pollution, public security, and infectious disease.
We can no longer govern as in the days when a business's competitor was located across the street. Interdependence is a fact of globalization.
Governing today requires co-operation. And co-operating in a federal environment means working together on common issues while recognizing that each member of the federation has its unique characteristics and interests.
In Quebec, for instance, we emphasize the need for provincial participation at the international level and on international treaty negotiations that affect our jurisdictions.
Other provinces share this demand. It is right and it makes sense. Nobody should challenge the fact that Canada is stronger when all its constituents can express themselves.
Let's remember that while Ottawa would like to sign all the treaties it wishes, it cannot implement those in areas of provincial jurisdictions. Co-operation is required.
In fact, we believe that when Quebec is the sole government responsible for implementing a particular international agreement, it should clearly be the one making the international commitment.
It is up to Quebec to decide whether or not to add to its internal obligations through international agreements: A Quebec jurisdiction at home remains a Quebec jurisdiction in international relations.
That being said, the various Canadian governments have always taken care to exercise their responsibilities while respecting Canadian foreign policy. That is what I mean by co-operation.
Co-operation is also our Agreement on Internal Trade signed by all provinces and the federal government; it's the work we're doing to harmonize securities regulations; and it's the provinces working together to form a common front in our efforts to improve health funding.
The Council of the Federation was founded on this principle of respectful co-operation.
One of the council's goals is to promote "relations between governments which are based on respect for the Constitution and recognition of the diversity within the federation."
In the preamble to the agreement on the council, we expressed recognition of the importance of "accepting that there are differences among the provinces and territories and that governments may have different policy priorities and preferences."
The Council of the Federation plays an important role in Canadian federalism.
For the first time in a long time, the regions, provinces and territories have their own common voice. Because, let's be honest, the Senate is no longer fully exercising its role.
These five principles are required to counter our slide toward a unitary state and to revive the essence of federalism in Canada.
Renewing the spirit of federalism requires a model that responds to the development of each society within the federation.
Canada must respect the spirit of federalism for the sake of all citizens. This spirit of co-operation, openness and acceptance of differences is what we all need to meet our challenges with success.
I accept that challenge defending the interest of Quebeckers with conviction and confidence.
For I believe in Quebec. I believe in Canada.
Jean Charest, Premier of Quebec, delivered the Symons Lecture yesterday in Charlottetown on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Confederation Centre of the Arts. This article is taken from those remarks.
© 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
