Skip to content

Election series part 2: Clarifying common misconceptions about government roles and responsibilities

Political science professor provides historical insight and Coles Notes breakdown of key difference between provincial and federal jurisdictions
local-news

With an historic provincial election just weeks away that will undoubtedly set the policy tone and trends for years to come, the Albertan spoke with a political science professor for this special series to discuss the state of our democracy, the case for and against electoral reform, and how people can be more engaged between elections.

Despite a deeply interconnected history and a close friendship forged in no short part through two global conflicts on the foundation of defending democracy, the U.S. and Canada have vastly different political systems founded on different principles.

But with Canada sharing the world’s longest land border with a heavily influential ally and global superpower that shares no shortage of common economic and cultural interests, many Canadians consume plenty of American news media, which can result in a skewed misunderstanding of politics at home.

During a conversation about common misconceptions regarding the roles and responsibilities of federal and provincial governments, University of Alberta political science professor Jared Wesley said Canada’s constitution – more specifically sections 91 and 92 – very clearly defines each level’s legislative reach.

“That’s spelled out in the constitution,” said Wesley. “Those sections were mostly drafted way back in the 19th century.”

In a nutshell, Section 91 effectively outlines the legislative responsibilities that are of a national scope such as currency, postal service, unemployment insurance, census and statistics, military and defence, as well as Indigenous affairs pertaining to lands and reserves.

Section 92 addresses those that fall under provincial authority, including but not limited to direct taxation within the province to raise revenue for provincial purposes, managing the sale of public lands that belong to the province, health care, the establishment of provincial penitentiaries, municipal institutions as well as property and civil rights in the province.

And while the constitution also bestows legislative power to the provinces for local works and undertakings, there are exceptions for such instances as “lines of steam or other ships, railways…and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province,” reads part of the document available on the Government of Canada’s website.

“One thing to know,” said Wesley, “is that the framers intended for Canada to be a very centralized federation; meaning that most of the important powers, they thought they were concentrating in the national government in Ottawa.

“But as it turns out, most of the responsibilities that they didn’t think were very big – including health care and education, which at that time were left largely up to churches – ended up being the largest and most expensive portfolios in the country, and ended up being some of the most politically charged,” he said.

Surveys consistently indicate that Canadians who are asked identify health care and education among their top five or six issues they’re concerned with, he said.

Since the constitution was first drafted in 1867 to when it was amended in 1982, there has been what was written within the document, and the way politics evolve and influence public perception.

“Over time, the provincial governments have assumed more responsibilities than they argue they can afford, and the federal has got more funding than it can spend in its areas of jurisdiction,” he said. “So as a result, we see the federal government having to fund areas of provincial jurisdiction, especially health care.”

Wesley said he understands why some Canadians “might be confused in that there’s no -- what one scholar called water-tight compartments -- between federal and provincial governments.”

“Because honestly to get anything done – not just on a national basis but even within each province – you’re going to need buy-in from both orders of governments, plus Indigenous governments and municipal governments,” he said.

The most common misunderstanding he’s familiar with in terms of provincial and federal authorities and the limits of their power, “is that the federal government has no role whatsoever in areas of provincial jurisdiction; and vice versa,” he said.

For example, some people will claim “the federal government has no right to wade into health-care policy because clearly health care and hospitals fall under provincial jurisdiction,” he said.

“Well, because the provinces have chosen not to use their full revenue-generating capacity – they haven’t raised taxes to point where they don’t need the federal government’s support – then the federal government can weigh in on areas of provincial jurisdiction by putting conditions on that,” he explained.  

“The reverse is also true,” he quickly added.

“You assume that the federal government’s responsibility over international affairs and signing treaties and trade agreements and so on would mean that they can make those decisions without provincial input,” he said.

“But increasingly, our trade partners are saying, ‘But you’re a federation; so, the agreement is not worth the paper that it’s written on if we don’t know that the provinces are on-board with it and will actually implement it.’”

Citing the more specific example of a comprehensive economic trade agreement with the E.U., he said, “I think the biggest misconception is that these two spheres of government are completely separate; they’re not. I think it’s a bit of a misnomer to criticize provincial politicians for talking about federal issues and vice versa, because all of these areas of policy are quite interconnected.”

Responding to a question about claims the federal government has repeatedly over-reached its powers and superseded provincial jurisdiction – from the convoy to firearms and of course fossil fuels – Wesley said a part of that is just politics.

“The beauty of our constitution is that we have an arbiter,” he said. “The Supreme Court of Canada is the ultimate arbiter that decides, and has decided over time, which order of government can act in which ways.”

Interestingly, he noted that during the earlier days of confederation, the court tended to side more frequently with the provinces.

“They actually decentralized the federation and gave more control to the provinces by seeing things through the lens of property rights and civil rights,” he said.

“And then the courts changed their mind, and sided with the federal government and saw a period of centralization throughout the latter part of the 20th century.”

So while political battles will continue to be waged as partisanship creeps into issues and heightens conflicts that turn otherwise minor squabbles into national unity issues, there remains room to find solace in Canada’s system, he said.

“At the end of the day, Canadians can rest assured that we have a Supreme Court that can serve as a referee.”


Simon Ducatel

About the Author: Simon Ducatel

Simon Ducatel joined Mountain View Publishing in 2015 after working for the Vulcan Advocate since 2007, and graduated among the top of his class from the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology's journalism program in 2006.
Read more



Comments

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks