Politique provinciale et territoriale au Canada et au-delà



J01 - Federalism, Power-sharing and Intergovernmental Relations in Times of Crises – Canada and Beyond (1)

Date: Jun 12 | Heure: 08:30am to 10:00am | Salle: UQAM, Pavillon des sciences de la gestion (R), 315 Sainte-Catherine Street E., room/local R-3680

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Soeren Koeren (University of Fribourg)

This panel looks at the issues of federalism, power-sharing, intergovernmental relations and crises in a comparative perspective. Looking at Canadian intergovernmental relations, the role of mayors and their access to decision-making in the UK, the judiciary in power-sharing systems, peace negotiations in Cyprus and the question of power-sharing adoptability and durability, the panel brings together a wealth of perspectives on federalism and other forms of power-sharing, institutional arrangements, and discussions on how different systems and institutions deal with crises situations.

The Council of the Federation at 20 and Power-Sharing in Canada: Hopes and Pitfalls: Félix Mathieu (University of Winnipeg)
Abstract: Borrowing from Martin Papillon and Richard Simeon’s formulae, it is common for scholars to refer to power-sharing mechanisms in Canada as being the “weakest link” in the federal system. The Canadian Second Chamber (the Senate) is hardly promoting regional representation and interests in the Canadian Parliament, and First Ministers’ Meetings are dominated by the federal prime minister’s agenda. However, roughly 20 years ago, in December 2003, a new institution was set up under the leadership of Quebec’s newly elected provincial government in collaboration with the other 12 provincial and territorial Premiers: the Council of the Federation. Its main objective is to promote inter-provincial-territorial cooperation and to foster meaningful relations between governments based on the recognition of the diversity within the Canadian federation. As such, great hopes were invested in this institution to instill a new era of power-sharing in Canadian federalism. Two decades later, has the institution lived up to its promises? In this communication, I will offer a critical assessment of the evolution of the Council of the Federation by focusing on a series of key policy issues and dynamics.


Intergovernmental Relations and Devolution in England: Opportunities, Challenges and Future Prospects: Paul Anderson (Liverpool John Moores University)
Abstract: Since their establishment, metro mayors have become an entrenched feature of devolved governance in England, gaining increased prominence during the Covid-19 crisis. The crisis raised the public profiles of metro mayors and highlighted the importance of effective central-local government relations, but public disagreements between the metro mayors and central government over lockdown rules and financial resources pointed to a distant and somewhat dysfunctional central-local relationship. In recent years, some attention has been paid to the importance of intergovernmental relations between the UK Government and devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but little attention has been paid to harnessing relations with England's metro mayors. Drawing on interview data with metro mayors, other personnel within the combined authorities and central government, this paper presents preliminary findings from a research project examining relations between the mayoral combined authorities and central government. It explores how relations between combined authorities and central government have developed in recent years, as well as how mayor-to-mayor relations have evolved. It concludes by sketching potential avenues for reform, utilising the viewpoints of the stakeholders involved


Constituent Units as Democratic Enclaves: understanding subnational counterforces to democratic backsliding in Brazil (2018-2022): Silvana Gomes (University of Ottawa), André Lecours (University of Ottawa)
Abstract: The last few years have witnessed an upsurge in populist and extremist movements worldwide. In some cases, these movements led to political violent outbursts and direct action to challenge democratic institutions. In Brazil, the Bolsonaro administration (2018-2022) was the greatest expression of what has commonly been called democratic backsliding. Through nostalgic praise for the military dictatorship (1964-1985) and its perpetrators, aggressive rhetoric against political opponents, support for misinformation and disinformation, constant attacks on the country’s highest courts, and unfounded claims seeking to undermine the credibility of Brazil’s electoral system, Bolsonaro constituted the most acute threat to the Brazilian democracy since the 1980s. Despite his solid support base in the National Congress and across society, Bolsonaro found significant resistance to his actions among state governors and mayors, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper argues that constituent units acted as important democratic enclaves in the context of democratic backsliding during Bolsonaro’s tenure. However, these subnational counterforces to democratic backsliding must be understood in light of three characteristics. First, opposition to Bolsonaro was not unanimous across subnational governments due to party affiliation and ideological identification. Second, governors and mayors did not have the tools to resist undemocratic actions from the central government on their own. They heavily leaned on the judiciary to obtain court rulings to prevent or reverse federal policies encroaching on their powers. Third, political opportunism was also factored into subnational contestation to Bolsonaro’s actions. By offering a more nuanced analysis of the role played by constituent units in upholding democracy in a complex federation, the paper helps advance extant knowledge about the dynamics of democratic backsliding and resistance in federal settings.


The Pandemic's legacy: How has HOW Intergovernmental relations happen in Canada changed?: Julie Simmons (University of Guelph)
Abstract: Comparatively speaking, intergovernmental relations in Canada are characterised as relatively informal and weakly institutionalized. While there have been some attempts to create more formal processes in some policy areas, and even at the level of first ministers, such nascent institutional developments are susceptible to changes in leadership in Ottawa. For example, the exogenous shock of Stephen Harper’s “Open Federalism” destabilized the steps towards formalization and regularization of intergovernmental relations of the Chretien "Collaborative Federalism” era (Simmons 2021). The Covid 19 pandemic was an exogenous shock of a different kind, moving much of Canada’s workforce online. This paper explores how the format of intergovernmental relations across policy areas was impacted by the inability of provincial and federal elected and appointed officials to meet in person, and whether different patterns of interaction from this period have had an enduring impact on the conduct of federal-provincial relations today. It uses both quantitative data (frequency of in-person meetings pre and post Covid across policy areas and among ministers and deputy ministers), and quantitative data (interviews with unelected intergovernmental officials in provinces and at the federal level who share their perceptions of how the functioning of their relationships with counterparts in other jurisdictions has changed). It will be of interest to scholars and practitioners of federalism in Canada and elsewhere, as well as those with an interest in theories of institutional and organizational change.