Law and Public Policy

D14(b) - Policy Transfer, Policy Diffusion and Interjurisdictional Relations in Canada

Date: May 31 | Time: 03:45pm to 05:15pm | Location: Classroom - CL 316 Room ID:15727

Chair/Président/Présidente : Andrea Olive (University of Toronto)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Brendan Boyd (University of Calgary)

Session Abstract: Interjurisdictional dynamics play an important role in Canada’s federation and are observed in a variety of policy areas, including environment, health, education, fiscal and taxation, and labour standards. Scholarly attention has largely focused on economic competitiveness issues created by interjurisdictional pressures and the impact on policy of a “race to the bottom”. There has been less study of trans-jurisdictional transfer of policy through sharing of information and ideas. In other words, how do policies move across jurisdictions, how do provincial, territorial and federal governments learn from each other’s experience when responding to common policy issues, and what impact does this have on policy development? The study of the race to the bottom in Canada typically assumes attempts at cooperation or learning will be stymied or overshadowed by competitiveness concerns. However, the spread of policies through information sharing and emulation among provinces can be an important driver of policy development in Canada. In addition to interprovincial diffusion, vertical diffusion from provinces to the federal government is also observable, as provinces provide policy experiments that can be replicated on a larger scale. The goal of this panel is to contribute to a better understanding of the influence that interjurisdictional transfer plays in policy development and Canadian federalism, and how it interacts with competitiveness concerns. The panel includes four studies in the areas of natural resource and environmental policy (Millar), naturopathic medicine regulation (Snow), poverty reduction strategies (Hudson) and marijuana control policy (Wesley).

Policy and Political Learning? Interjurisdictional Transfer of Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation Among: Heather Millar (University of Toronto)
Abstract: Scholarship on interjurisdictional policy transfer has long identified learning as a key mechanism of policy change. From early studies on lesson drawing (Rose 1991), social learning (Hall 1993; May 1992), and policy oriented-learning (Sabatier 1988) to more recent examinations of the function of learning in policy diffusion (Simons, Dobbin and Garrett 2008), research has documented the ways in which policy actors often use other jurisdictions as “laboratories of democracy” to inform policy formulation and design (Graham, Shipan, and Volden 2012). Yet reviews of the field continue to bemoan a lack of clarity regarding conceptualization and measurement, namely: what is learned, who is learning, and the conditions under which learning occurs (Bennett and Howlett 1992; Moyson, Scholten, and Weible 2017). Recent scholarship has begun to address this gap, noting that different jurisdictions can learn about what policies are effective as well as what policies are politically expedient (Maggetti and Gilardi 2016). This paper builds on this distinction by examining the conditions for learning among provincial government officials working on hydraulic fracturing, a type of energy production. Drawing on case studies of interjurisdictional policy transfer in Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, the study confirms the institutional and ideational conditions for learning about policy effectiveness, finding that institutional insularity and perceived complexity (Pierson 1993) play a significant role. However the paper also finds that finds that in some cases, conditions promoting policy learning have an opposite effect on political learning, dampening the attention of government.

Provincial Governance of Naturopaths in Canada: A Decade of Policy Diffusion?: Dave Snow (University of Guelph)
Abstract: Since 2008, the five westernmost Canadian provinces have legislated to bring naturopaths under the governance structure for self-regulated professions. While proponents claim this has legitimized the profession and should improve patient care, critics argue that it has done little to improve governance, and may legitimize unsafe practices. However, there has been little empirical research on how naturopaths are actually governed, either by provincial governments or internal regulatory colleges. This paper examines college by-laws, professional guidelines, and provincial legislation to examine how naturopaths are regulated in Canada: how they are defined, their scope of practice, their educational requirements, and their regulatory structures. It also explores the extent to which there has been policy diffusion across the provinces, looking at how naturopaths in different provinces have emulated other governance schemes, such as those that exist for midwives and chiropractors. Preliminary evidence suggests that the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario have been “policy leaders,” with their governance structures borrowed in other provinces’ regulations. Although there are similar provincial scopes of practice and professional self-definition, there is considerable variation with respect to the separation of “advocacy” and “regulatory” functions of provincial associations.

Marijuana Legalization: Policy Diffusion and Intergovernmental Collusion (or Confusion)?: Jared Wesley (University of Alberta)
Abstract: In legalizing marijuana, governments across Canada are undertaking one of the most intense exercises in national policymaking in the country’s history. A smooth transition to the new legal framework will require extensive collaboration across sectors and jurisdictions. While the federal government can legislate changes to ensure the safety and security of the country’s marijuana supply (e.g., by licensing producers), provinces and territories will be required to reform policies, laws, and regulations around the distribution and sale of cannabis. This will involve everything from law enforcement to workplace safety; from manufacturing to distribution; from public education to border security. Governments and their stakeholders are faced with a more fundamental set of questions, however. How integrated or harmonized should the new system be, across provincial and territorial borders? Should governments work together to create a common approach to regulating the sale of marijuana, be it public or private? Should they set the same minimum age of consumption? Should they tax marijuana at the same rate? The federal government's timeline gave its provincial, territorial, and municipal partners less than a year to answer these questions, and to pass hundreds of legislative and regulatory changes in order to implement the new regime. Precisely how are policymakers coping with this challenge, in the lead-up to legalization on July 1, 2018? This paper draws on extensive interviews with key players in various governments across Canada to determine which tools they are employing within their own governments, and across governments.