By Ethan Hollander, Wabash College
Given the potential for federal governments to encroach on the jurisdiction of state and local authorities, it’s worth asking how it is that states and provinces preserve their autonomy. Canadian federalism provides a real case study, both for the power of the individual federated units and also for how those units manage to preserve their autonomy in the face of federal overreach.
The US and Canadian Constitutions
In many ways, Canada is more decentralized than the United States—with the various provinces (and particularly Quebec) maintaining a significant degree of autonomy. But this is surprising because, on paper, Canada’s constitution makes it look like the country would be more centralized.
The US Constitution grants only very limited powers to the federal government, and then the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution states that all other powers are reserved to the states. It’s almost as if the default setting in the United States is that individual states have power, unless otherwise stated.
The Canadian constitution is the opposite: It spells out the rights that the provinces have, and then suggests that everything else is the prerogative of the federal government.
Reading the two constitutions side by side, one would expect Canada to be more centralized than the United States. But what’s written on paper and what actually happens are two very different things—because, over time, the Canadian Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of the provinces, granting them expanded powers and imposing limits on what the central government can do. (As we’ve seen, US judicial norms have evolved in the exact opposite direction.)
This article comes directly from content in the video series Democracy and Its Alternatives. Watch it now, on Wondrium.
Province of Quebec
An added decentralizing force for Canadian politics is the province of Quebec, which is really distinct compared to the other Canadian provinces.
Canada is bilingual: About 80% of Canadians speak English as their primary language, whereas about 20% speak French. But Canada’s French speakers are concentrated in Quebec, such that their numbers there are basically reversed: 80% of Quebec’s population is French-speaking, while English speakers are in the minority.
And because Canada’s French speakers view themselves as culturally distinct, they add a nationalist dimension to Canada’s provincial politics.
Independence for Quebec
At various points in Canadian history, the Québécois have demanded independence—and not always peacefully. In the 1960s and ’70s, there was even a homegrown terrorist organization dedicated to the cause of Quebec independence.
And in 1995, the issue was put to a vote in a referendum for the people of Quebec. The independence campaign lost, but only by a razor-thin margin. So, the notion that Quebec might someday declare independence from Canada is far from theoretical.
But this is where Canadian federalism comes in.
Provincial Autonomy
Canadian federalism can be seen as a top-down attempt to keep Quebec in the union. So long as Canadian federalism is real, in law and in practice, the people of Quebec—even those who might otherwise want independence—are willing to give ground on the issue of sovereignty.
For many Quebecers, provincial autonomy lowers the cost of staying Canadian, while the benefits of staying Canadian remain the same. So, it’s not an exaggeration to say that Quebec has been the engine for the continuation of federalism throughout Canada, in both law and practice.
In fact, Quebec has been pretty consistent about turning down federal funding when it’s tied to conditions that might result in a lessening of regional autonomy. Unlike the US states, which adopted the federal drinking age because they wanted federal highway funds, Quebec has turned down very similar grants—especially when they touch on matters of language or education.
Ethnic Federalism
However, federalism, especially ethnic federalism, can be a double-edged sword. It might have the capacity to keep a country together, but there’s a real concern that it also has the potential to exacerbate separatist tendencies and to tear a country apart.
When individual regions—especially culturally distinct ones like Quebec—have local autonomy, that autonomy magnifies the voice of those who advocate for even greater degrees of separatism. Regional leaders tend to cater to—or exploit—local resentments. And regional political parties, representing region-specific interests, sometimes come to dominate regional legislatures.
More dangerous still (at least for the forces of integration), separatists sometimes get elected to federal office, where they find a national platform on which to air local grievances.
If these are the kinds of conflicts that federalism gives rise to in a country as democratic, stable, and wealthy as Canada, one shudders to think about what conflicts might evolve in societies that are even more divided.
Common Questions about Canadian Federalism
The US Constitution grants only very limited powers to the federal government, and then the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution states that all other powers are reserved to the states. It’s almost as if the default setting in the United States is that individual states have power, unless otherwise stated. The Canadian constitution is the opposite: It spells out the rights that the provinces have, and then suggests that everything else is the prerogative of the federal government.
Canadian federalism can be seen as a top-down attempt to keep Quebec in the union. For many Quebecers, provincial autonomy lowers the cost of staying Canadian, while the benefits of staying Canadian remain the same. So, it might be said that Quebec has been the engine for the continuation of federalism throughout Canada, in both law and practice.
Ethnic federalism can be a double-edged sword. It might have the capacity to keep a country together, but there’s a real concern that it also has the potential to exacerbate separatist tendencies and to tear a country apart.
