Facing the Coronavirus Pandemic in the Canadian Federation: Reinforced Dualism and Muted Cooperation? (preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: Canada’s federal structure has undeniably impacted the management of the Covid-19 pandemic. Innumerable policy areas, implicating both federal and provincial/territorial actors, are engaged in a pandemic response. Despite a formally dualist constitutional structure, grey zones – where jurisdictions overlap – exist. Effective public health responses require actors to sort out “who does what” and coordinate their actions. This paper examines federal dynamics in the first six months of the Covid-19 pandemic, encompassing the initial outbreak in March 2020 and first wave, the summer months’ partial lull and the start of the second wave in the fall of 2020. Focusing primarily on health and public safety (including emergency power), it describes the constitutional and legislative frameworks shaping each order of government’s actions, as well as the existing institutional intergovernmental frameworks. The article surveys the response measures taken at the federal and provincial levels and analyzes intergovernmental relations during this initial period. It also examines what measures were not taken – notably the invocation of the federal emergency power. The federal narrative of Canada’s initial pandemic response is one of parallel action by various orders of government, in line with the dualist nature of the federation. Both the provinces and the center remain strong actors. Surprisingly, there have hardly been any jurisdictional turf battles. Still, initial convergences in public health measures have given way to greater variations as provinces re-opened in the summer of 2020. With infection rates and deaths differing radically across the country, relations between provinces have been strengthened and, in some cases, tested. Unlike some federations, which saw either centralisation (temporary or not) or the creation of new multilateral bodies often under federal leadership, intergovernmental relations have been real, particularly at the operational level, but muted. Consultations occurred via a number of both already established and more ad hoc intergovernmental channels, often with quiet and largely behind-the-scenes cooperation. New regional blocks have also emerged, to improve public health measures but also to maximize bargaining power and political pressure on the federal government. Generally, intergovernmental relations remain widespread, executive-led, and relatively effective. But opaque as ever. French Abstract: La structure federale du Canada a un impact indeniable sur la gestion de la pandemie de Covid-19. D’innombrables spheres de politiques publiques sont mobilisees dans la lutte contre la pandemie. Elles relevent tant des autorites federales que des provinces et territoires. Malgre une structure constitutionnelle formellement dualiste, des zones grises, ou les competences se chevauchent, existent. Des reponses efficaces en termes de sante publique exigent que les acteurs clarifient « qui fait quoi » et coordonnent leurs actions. Ce texte examine les dynamiques federales des six premiers mois de la pandemie de Covid-19, couvrant le declenchement de l’epidemie en mars 2020 et la premiere vague, l’accalmie partielle des mois d’ete et le debut de la deuxieme vague a l’automne 2020. S’interessant principalement aux domaines de la sante et de la securite publique (y compris les mesures d’urgence), il decrit les cadres constitutionnel et legislatif structurant les actions de chacun des ordres de gouvernement ainsi que les arrangements intergouvernementaux mis en place avant et pendant la pandemie. L’article survole les mesures adoptees aux niveaux provincial et federal et analyse la teneur des relations intergouvernementales dans cette periode initiale. Il examine aussi quelles mesures n’ont pas ete prises – notablement l’invocation des mesures d’urgence par l’ordre federal. Le recit qui emerge met en exergue les actions paralleles prises par divers ordres de gouvernement, conformement a la nature dualiste de la federation. Tant les provinces que le centre demeurent des acteurs forts. Fait surprenant, la periode n’a ete marquee par aucun conflit de competences significatif. Cela etant, la convergence initiale entre les mesures de sante publique a cede le pas a de plus grandes variations lors du « decloisonnement » des provinces a l’ete 2020. Avec des taux d’infection et de mortalite variant radicalement a travers le pays, les relations entre provinces ont ete a la fois renforcees et, dans certains cas, mises a l’epreuve. Contrairement a d’autres federations, qui ont vecu une centralisation (temporaire ou non) ou la creation de nouveaux organes multilateraux souvent sous la direction du federal, les relations intergouvernementales se sont manifestees, particulierement au niveau operationnel, mais de maniere discrete. Des consultations ont eu lieu via des canaux preexistants ou plus ad hoc. Des formes de cooperation ont emerge mais souvent de maniere fort peu transparente. De nouveaux blocs regionaux sont apparus, pour ameliorer les mesures de sante publique, mais aussi pour maximiser le pouvoir de negociation et la pression politique sur le gouvernement federal. De maniere generale, les relations intergouvernementales sont repandues, dominees par les pouvoirs executifs et relativement efficaces. Mais toujours aussi opaques.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".