A blog post titled “Memories of Canadian Federalism” evokes thoughts of a potential discourse about a President’s Choice product, perhaps a salad dressing or syrup, that promises a fusion of flavors that is both united and diverse. Alas, that is not the case here. I am in the process of putting the final touches on my fall Fiscal Federalism graduate course which interestingly enough seems to have a rather large number of students enrolled – for a graduate course. The explanation for the bump in enrollment likely rests with a dearth of electives this fall for graduate and senior undergrad students in Economics at Lakehead rather than any innate magnetism on my part.
I have been teaching this course for a number of years now and it has evolved into a course that covers both the classic economic foundations of federalism with papers by James Buchanan, Charles Tiebout, Richard Musgrave, and Wallace Oates to more recent work that marks the new fiscal federalism with its focus on micro theory and incentives. There are a lot of empirical papers – especially on measuring the Tiebout migration mechanism – and of course lectures on grants, transfers and equalization and those aspects that characterize what can only be termed as the “immeasurable majesty of the Canadian federal system in all its splendor.” Weekly module topics include, Federalism: Rationale and Functions, Federalism, Mobility and Resources: Tiebout Model-Theory, Federalism, Mobility and Resources: Tiebout Model-Empirical Evidence, Federalism, Spending and Public Sector Size, Centralization and Decentralization, Grants and Equalization, Public Goods and Taxation in a Federal System and the relatively new section Federalism, Health, Pandemics and the Environment.
Now, to the point. In the process of going through my many folders and files, the following gem tumbled out:
I had
not seen this for a long time, but it is a set of 20 little pamphlets in a
convenient pocket sized paper carrying case called “Notes on Canadian Federalism.” This obvious collector’s item dates back to
the early 1980s or so in the wake of the national unity crises brought about by
the election of the PQ in Quebec and the first sovereignty referendum as well as the natural
resource clashes between Ottawa and Alberta over energy policy, not to
mention the conversion of federal grants for health and post-secondary
education from a 50/50 cost sharing approach to the block Established Program Financing
grant and the debate over repatriating the Constitution.. It was the best of times; it was the worst of
times and in the tumult the Canadian Unity Information Office issued this 20-pamphlet
set of information that in essence was a short lay person’s course on
federalism but from the lens of the government of the day and its own agendas. Why pamphlets? Well, this is the 1980s. There was no Twitter or Facebook.
As the images show, a wide variety of topics are covered by these 20 pamphlets which taken together provide a short course in Canadian federalism. There are all kinds of interesting quotes in these pamphlets. For example, in No. 1 What is Federalism it defines federalism as: “a type of association between groups, communities, peoples or nations who have agreed to unite in order to better safeguard their future and their prosperity…federalism ensures unity in diversity…Federalism…ensures a spirit of healthy rivalry among the member states. On the other hand, it calls for a sense of solidarity and for dialogue among participating governments.” In No. 5, Advantages and Disadvantages of Federalism, among other things…”it should be noted that the economic policies implemented by one of the governments in the federation sometimes have negative effects on the total economic situation of the country. For example, heavy borrowing on the part of the provinces may greatly increase the deficit in the balance of payments and negatively influence national monetary policies.” This is quite an intriguing statement given that it was eventually the borrowing of the federal government that led to the federal fiscal crisis and transfer payment cuts of the 1990s.
And in Note 12 The Provinces and their responsibilities there is this: “Certain responsibilities must belong to the provinces because each province has its own special characteristics that give it, its “personality”: language, culture, and different economic institutions. Albertans may want to stress the physical sciences in university teaching and research programs, while the people of Ontario may want to concentrate more on business administration.” Of course, in this day and age, if Alberta and Ontario were individual people, this would probably be seen as some type of gender-based career stereotyping. But I digress.
These are intriguing documents and now a part of Canada’s fiscal economic history. In essence, they provide a short course on federalism from the perspective of the federal government and issues of the day. All things considered, they discuss concepts at a fairly high level for today’s general public and these types of discussions would not be out of place and perhaps even of benefit today. After all, Canada is still a federation and if it seems acrimonious today it must be remembered that it has always been so. The danger to a federation and its unity comes not from rancorous debate over issues, but from silence when the constituent units have decided to stop talking.