CD HOWE PAPER
Time Out: Assessing Incremental Strategies for Enhancing the Canadian Political Union
by Roger Gibbins

There is a growing consensus that the federal status quo cannot hold, that Quebec federalists must be able to offer concrete reforms if they are to have any chance of winning the next sovereignty referendum. At the same time, there is growing pessimism about the prospects of formal constitutional change. As a consequence, incremental change pursued through conventional political processes has become the dominant reform strategy.

Incrementalism, however, is more than a process; it is also a destination marked by increased decentralization and intergovern-mentalism. Taken together, these two features of the incremental strategy raise concerns about the nature of federal and democratic government in Canada. They foreshadow a future in which citizenship ties between individual Canadians and their federal govern-ment are weakened, government becomes more rather than less complex, democratic accountability is weakened, and many of the advantages of decentralization are lost.

Canada should therefore declare a time-out and reassess the incremental strategy before it takes the country too far down the path to a destination that may neither keep Quebec in Canada nor serve Canadians well should Quebec leave.

Press Release from CD HOWE - February 29, 1997

Incremental approach to constitutional change won’t work, warns political scientist

Canada should declare a time-out and reassess decentralization and the incremental approach to constitutional reform before they take the country too far down the path to a destination that may neither keep Quebec in Canada nor serve Canadians well should Quebec leave, warns a C.D. Howe Institute Commentary released today.

The study, Time Out: Assessing Incremental Strategies for Enhancing the Canadian Political Union, was written by Roger Gibbins, a political scientist at the University of Calgary.

Since the demise of the Charlottetown Accord and the narrow federalist victory in the recent Quebec referendum, there is a growing consensus that the federal status quo cannot hold, that Quebec federalists must be able to offer concrete reforms if they are to have any chance of winning the next referendum. At the same time, there is growing pessimism about the prospects of formal constitutional change Thus, incremental change pursued through conventional political processes has become the dominant constitutional reform strategy, Gibbins says.

Gibbins warns, however, that the marriage of decentralization and intergovernmentalism inherent in the incremental approach to change precludes public consultation, debate, and ratification and instead signals a retreat from open democratic government, with political power moving behind closed doors, to forums removed from democratic participation and accountability. Yet the accumulated changes favored by the incremental strategy will transform the country, Gibbins says - a transformation that should be held up for public debate, not simply imposed a step at a time.

Gibbins also argues that these new federal arrangements would make Canadian govern-ment more, not less, complex. Decentralization aims to change federal practice, not the formal constitutional division of powers. By maintaining that national standards need not be federal government standards, incrementalists hope to offset decentralization’s potentially disintegra-tive effect. Most assume continued support for equalization, but the logic of decentralization works against that. By maximizing the influence of governments (especially those of the provinces and territories), incrementalism tips the playing field in favor of decentralization. To argue for incremental change is to argue for decentralization; to choose this process, Gibbins says, is to choose its inevitable outcome.

This publication continues the C.D. Howe Institute’s postreferendum research agenda, which comprises two Commentary series. The first series, "The Canadian Union Papers," focuses on ways to enhance Canada’s political, economic, and social union. Papers already published in the series have examined some of Ottawa’s legal and constitutional options for strengthening the economic union, and ways to enhance Canadians’ common economic citizenship rights. Complementing this effort is another Commentary series called "The Secession Papers," which examine issues relating to the following areas:

• the terms and conditions of a possible future referendum on Quebec sovereignty;
• the circumstances which the country might confront after a Yes vote, together with the processes by which the secession of Quebec might be addressed;
• the means by which a new Canada without Quebec might be established, should Quebec leave Confederation.

The papers are guided by the following principles: respect for democratic norms and the rule of law; the necessity for an authoritative decision and a stable outcome; and minimizing the social and economic costs of any transition. In the light of the results of the recent referendum in Quebec, "The Secession Papers" aim to assist Canadians to "think about the unthinkable."

Both series are being published under the supervision of David Cameron, a political scientist at the University of Toronto.

---

Main Findings of the Commentary

• In the debate about renewing Canada’s federation, belief in the need for change and pessimism about the possibility of change underpin a strategy of cautious incrementalism whose outcome is characterized by decentralization and intergovernmentalism.
• Decentralization (in the formof rebalancing) aims to change federal practice, not the formal constitutional division of powers. By maintaining that national standards need not be federal government standards, incrementalists hope to offset decentralization’s potentially disintegrative effect. Most assume continued support for equalization, but the logic of decentralization works against that.
• Because constituent assemblies are incompatible with incremental reform, many incre-mentalists seek to contain the reform process within the more conventional channels of intergovernmentalism. Taken too far, however, intergovernmentalism could negate the advantages of decentralization.
• Current incrementalism builds on past failures (the content of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords). For the most part, only the strategy has changed.
• By maximizing the influence of governments (especially provincial and territorial govern-ments), incrementalism tips the playing field in favor of decentralization. To argue for incremental change is to argue for decentralization; to choose this process is to choose its inevitable outcome.
• Incrementalism assumes that all parties will be satisfied in the short run with changes to the practice of Canadian federalism rather than to its institutions, Constitution, and symbolic projections.
• Decentralization is an alternative to, not a facilitator of, institutional and constitutional reform.
• Incrementalism provides an effective veto to the party whose interests are addressed first. Thus, one must ask whether Canadians will be better off if just the first step is taken.
• Embedded within the incremental strategy lies a vision of Canada that is asymmetrical in result.
• The marriage of decentralization and intergovernmentalism means a retreat from open democratic government, with political power moving behind closed doors, to forums removed fromdemocratic participation and accountability. And these new federal arrange-ments would make Canadian government more, not less, complex.
• Incrementalists assume that Canada must be decentralized to compete globally. But among the country’s major competitors, economic success seems to be coupled with relatively strong national governments and relatively centralized federations. Decentrali-zation may be better designed to improve the provinces’ positions globally.
• Ironically, incrementalists’ solution to Canada’s unity crisis is similar to that advanced by Quebec nationalists. The strategy proposed by the former to save Canada is proposed by the latter to create an independent Quebec. But intergovernmentalism might not serve Quebec nationalists. The decentralization designed to keep Quebec in Canada could compromise Quebec sovereignty even more.
• The incremental strategy precludes public consultation, debate, and ratification. But the accumulated changes favored by the incremental strategy will transform Canada. This transformation should be held up for public debate, not simply imposed a step at a time. A number of questions should therefore be addressed before Canadians fully embrace the incremental strategy and its twin pillars, decentralization and intergovernmentalism.

Full text of the paper, (in .pdf format), or hard copies, may be obtained from the CD HOWE INSTITUTE