Intergovernmental Relations in Canada and the United Kingdom

Abstract

All Federal and devolved systems of government divide competences between two orders of government, and relations between them have to be managed through systems of intergovernmental relations (IGR). Anderson and Gallagher describe and analyse these in Canada and the UK. IGR is predominantly an executive matter in both, with little role for the legislative assemblies. Both are relatively informal, without substantial institutionalization, in spite of attempts. Instead, IGR is dealt with at a high level by political negotiation and on a day-to-day level by officials dealing with practical and technical matters. Yet there are important differences between the two, resulting from their distinct histories and the radical asymmetry of the UK arrangements. Devolution is a side issue most of the time in London but comes to the fore at a time of constitutional crisis, such as the Northern Ireland peace process or the Scottish independence referendum. This makes it easier for the UK to concede, incrementally, more powers to Scotland, with some tendency for Wales to play catch-up. The distinct politics of each of the devolved territories has also made British IGR largely bilateral even on constituional issues. Federal–provincial relations on the other hand are at the heart of Canadian policy-making in important fields. The Canadian system is consciously multilateral, actively resisting increased asymmetry. The fact that there are other provinces means Quebec cannot have as distinct a status as, say, Scotland in the UK. Canadian IGR are long established, while the UK’s are still a novelty. Inevitably, therefore, it is the UK which can take lessons from Canadian experience.