Federalism and Lacrosse

 By Duane Bratt

            Federalism is the essential feature of Canada. Federalism has two orders of government – a central government and state/provincial governments – with sovereignty shared between them. Each order of government has exclusive jurisdiction in some areas and there is also some shared jurisdiction. It was invented in the United States, but many other countries (Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, India, Australia) are federal systems. Federalism is particularly designed for countries that have large geographic areas and/or societal cleavages (language, religion, etc). This is why Canada adopted a federal system in 1867. The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction in things such as monetary policy, defence policy, criminal code, and items that cross provincial boundaries or are national in nature. Provincial governments have exclusive jurisdiction in education, health care, municipalities, natural resources, and items that are local in nature. Shared jurisdiction exists in immigration, agriculture, and environment.  

            The principles of federalism extend through much of Canadian civil society. With organizations formed on national basis with provincial chapters. Each sharing responsibility. This includes Canada’s sport system which has National Sport Organizations (NSOs) and Provincial Sport Organizations (PSO). Each with distinct jurisdictional roles and responsibilities as well as cooperation (and yes conflict!) between provincial bodies and national bodies.

Lacrosse has its own federal system. There is Lacrosse Canada at the national level and each province has their own provincial association. Lacrosse Canada is focused, among other things, on national championships (crossing provincial boundaries), national teams (representing Canada at world championships), designing coach and official training, and writing rule books.  The provincial associations control provincial championships, provincial teams at national championships, delivering coach and official training, revising rules based on local characteristics, and grassroots lacrosse.

However, there are major differences between Canada’s political federal system and Canada’s lacrosse federal system. First is that there is no constitution or overarching document that authoritatively designates federal and provincial jurisdiction in lacrosse. Canada’s British North American Act (1867) and the Constitution Act (1982) both identify federal powers (section 91) and provincial powers (section 92), and shared powers (section 95). Lacrosse Canada has an Operating Policy and each provincial association have by-laws, but there is no one single document identifying jurisdictional responsibilities.

Second, and this relates to the first issue, there is no authoritative way of arbitrating between federal and provincial lacrosse associations. In Canada’s political systems, the court system, and ultimately the Supreme Court, makes decisions about jurisdictional disputes. Sometimes the courts rule in favour of the federal government and sometimes the courts rule in favour of the provinces. For example, when the Pierre Trudeau government wanted to unilaterally patriate the Constitution in 1980, the Supreme Court said he could not do this and had to work with the provinces. When several the provinces challenged the federal carbon tax for infringing on provincial natural resources jurisdiction, the Supreme Court ruled that climate change was a national issue and could therefore implement it. This means that when disputes between Lacrosse Canada and provincial associations occur (and oh my god do they occur) there is no definitive way of resolving them.

Third, Lacrosse Canada relies on participant fees from the provincial associations to help fund the organization. There is no equivalent of Revenue Canada which collects federal taxes on behalf of the federal government. Nor is there a national database of participants. All participant data is collected at the provincial level. This means, to a certain degree, that Lacrosse Canada is dependent upon the provincial associations for its finances. It has to trust that the numbers being remitted are accurate and, in the case of a severe dispute, that a province will not withhold funds. There are provinces (most notably Quebec and Alberta) who want to collect federal taxes and remit it back to the federal government, instead of having Revenue Canada collect provincial taxes and remit it back to the provinces (Quebec already collects its own taxes). But no federal government would agree to that because it would put them in a dependent financial relationship with the provinces. But that is the state of play in Canadian lacrosse.

Fourth, there is great discrepancy in the size of lacrosse across the country. Ontario dominates and British Columbia and Alberta are large as well. Then there are much smaller provinces. This is obviously true in Canadian politics, where Ontario has almost 40% of the country’s population and wealth. And there is greater per capita wealth in Alberta, BC, and Saskatchewan. However, the federal government uses fiscal transfers to try and ensure relatively equitable systems of health care and education across the country. In addition, poorer provinces receive equalization funds from the federal government to make up for their fiscal capacity. Lacrosse tries this with regards to major lacrosse national championships: Ontario is designed as a Type 1 province (club team only), BC and Alberta are Type 2 provinces (able to pick up three players), and every other province are Type 3 (can send an all-star team). But Lacrosse Canada does not have the fiscal capacity to help financially, organizationally, etc with smaller provinces. This means that the big provinces are even more dominant in lacrosse than they are politically.

Fifth, the federal government uses its spending power to intervene into provincial jurisdiction to establish national standards. We can see this most recently in the creation of national childcare and pharmacare programs. Both are in provincial jurisdiction, but provinces accepted federal money to bring in a national program. While the spending power is heavily criticized in Quebec and Alberta, many Canadians want to see national programs. However, in lacrosse, there is no equivalent of the spending power given the financial dependency of Lacrosse Canada on provincial associations. This means that programs are wildly different across the country: types of provincial championships, net sizes, offence-defence in minor lacrosse, and many others. Lacrosse Canada does try and establish national standards, but has few tools of enforcement. And provincial lacrosse associations are very jealous of their jurisdiction (like provincial governments). The difference is that the federal government, unlike Lacrosse Canada, has carrots and sticks to enforce national standards.

Canada’s political federal structure is one of the most decentralized in the world. Provinces, unlike US or Australian states, are very powerful. But Canada’s lacrosse federal structure is even more decentralized. Provincial associations dominant Lacrosse Canada even more. Even when we compare lacrosse to other sports, lacrosse is still more decentralized. This means that lacrosse is less of a national sport (Canada’s national summer sport) and more of a provincial sport that is played across the country.