The Case for Centralized Federalism

5. The Practitioner’s Perspective: Canada is a Journey, Not a Destination

174 The journey begins Almost one hundred and fifty years ago, a group of men came together to begin the journey towards creating Canada. Canada was to be greater than the sum of its parts. Driven by many considerations, they had a mutual respect for their history, law, convention and personal experience. They put aside more parochial interests and differences to find the commonality and sustainability of their dream. Their accomplishments, with us today, speak to their leadership and vision. Federalism is by definition the coming together to create a unity. That unity, to be successful, must reflect the challenges , differences and realities facing it. All are ‘made different ’ by the effort. All agreed that they were creating a new nation―Canada, derived from two histories and traditions ―shared and inextricably joined into the future. No provision was made for its dissolution; that thought was probably inconceivable to those great builders. In creating Canada, they came together to give life to a modern country that recognized their individual context and a structure that would speak for Canadians with one voice on the international and domestic stage. Chapter 5 The Practitioner’s Perspective: Canada is a Journey, Not a Destination Maryantonett Flumian The Practitioner’s Perspective 175 Achieving collective outcomes Building towards the collective outcome, they created a national government to consider, first and foremost, the interests of Canada. A new government was created to play the overarching role in how all Canadians would be treated in this collective. Like great builders, our forefathers recognized dynamic tensions and built into the system enough checks and balances to give shape to this common future. The duty to work things out on behalf of citizens―from all parts of the country―was key to the effective working of a national government and its constituent parts in the new federation. All governments are ‘given’a voice. The national government has a particular duty and interest in recognizing and developing the national expression of that voice. In casting their eyes to the future, these men were also undoubtedly comforted by the fact that British tradition recognized the evolving nature of constitutional convention . This is essential to the concept of evolving governance and its institutional capacity to continuously search for the modern expression of the original intent. It also allows for developments in unforeseen areas. Indeed, without this concept, our governmental institutions and their interactions with each other and citizens would be forever frozen in time, incapable of rising to future challenges and opportunities . In their time, and to the best of their abilities, the founders also looked hard into the future and tried to outline and define the areas in which each level of government would be paramount. The notions of exclusive and shared jurisdictions also evolved, but government and its administration is not cut and dry. Nor should it be. Context in life and in the conduct of government matters. Context matters Context is how citizens actually relate to government. Context is both a function of where people live and their cir- 176 Maryantonett Flumian cumstances. They may live in Alberta, Ontario or Quebec, and they might be unemployed and seeking work in their own communities. They may live and work in Winnipeg, Manitoba, but export all of their production to the United States or Slovakia. They may study in London, England but need medical care in Sudbury, Ontario. They may vacation in Mexico, live in Rimouski, Quebec and have all their identity documents and money stolen while abroad. They may live in Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland, work in Fort McMurray, Alberta and commute monthly. They may also have been born, grown up, work, retire and die in Nunavut. Context is essential to understanding how government plays a role in the life of citizens. The crafters of the federation allowed for enough checks and balances to safeguard modes of legitimate expression and dissent. Over one hundred years later, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has enshrined space for this individual expression. This has created even greater need for government to explain decisions about the greater good in the context of the individual. Yet debates continue using the paradigms of the past, with the result that citizens are badly served by their governments. Governments, by and large, are constrained by structures that no longer serve them― bureaucracies that were designed and equipped to support those outdated...