Okay, I will admit it. My favourite blogger whose name doesn't rhyme with "Ball Smells" is Mickey Kaus. Sometimes he is wrong, and sometimes (always) he is too smug. And sure, he works for "The Man" (albeit no longer Bill Gates). But I do always enjoy his dissection of the conventional wisdom. Today he went for the proverbial jugular of what every good Canadian polisci/law student knows as the God's honest truth. Federalism. Now, sure, everyone's got their hair in a tizzy over this Katrina mess, and perhaps Kaus is not the "Island of Calm" he claims to be, but has instead caught a case of Sullivan's "excitability" that he routinely mocks. But that being said, I think he raises an interesting normative question that is quite rarely raised in either the U.S. or Canada: Is federalism actually a good thing, or just an inefficient fluke of history?
The starting point for Kaus' inquiry is the (seemingly) needless requests for permission and subsequent jockeying for position (and funding) occasioned by the bifurcated soveriegnty of U.S. Katrina-relief efforts. But any breathing Canadian will recognize this process from the endless (and endlessly boring) jockeying we see on the on the news every day. Health care. Equalization payments. Oil revenues. Immigration. All the premiers get together and say the federal government should send them more money (the bigger provinces also ask for more powers). The federal government hems and haws, and eventually gives them some money. The some money is rarely a solution for a generation. But it usually works until next month. Of course, we must have these debates because they reflect the division of sovereignty in our fine nation between the provinces and the federal government. Sovereignties that are enshrined in our Constitution and which are the emanation of an historic compromise between our founding fathers. And of course we could never get rid of it, for a hundred and one reasons of politics. But really, is it any good? Or does it just create needless duplicity and political complication? [Note to 2020 A.D: Dear Political Opponents/Members of the Judicial Review Committee, I am really just thinking out loud, give me a break. "Political Opponents/Judicial Review Committee"?? That's some ego you have. - Ed. Hey, I'm just covering my bases, did you see all the background stuff they're digging up on Roberts, and besides, who are you? I said I liked Mickey Kaus, I didn't say I was him.]
The way I see it, there are two basic defences for maintaining Canadian federalism:
1) In a country as disperse and diverse as ours, people need a level of government that is closer to them, to reflect their values and culture; and
2) Laboratories of democracy! If different provinces can tackle the same issue the best policy will rise to the top. Like a fine cream.
Number 1 seems like the stronger argument to me, or at least the most realistic. That being said, as Canada develops into a diverse multicultural smorgasborg (which is a good thing), the need for these artificial provincial barriers to protect our diversity would seem to be greatly diminished. And if the people need a level of government that is closer to them, to provide them with services "on the ground", wouldn't municipal governments (perhaps more broadly conceived) be more effective?
With respect to Number 2, I have an empirical question. Does this EVER happen? Is great policy being made in Saskatchewan on the basis of a successful test of said policy in New Brunswick? Really? Please, do tell. In the case of health care, for instance, the only strategies the premiers ever seem to share are related to scaring up some scratch from rich uncle Paul.
All of which is to say what? I don't know. The thing is, aside from the politics, I think the Canadian public has, genuinely and despite the theoretical difficulty involved, internalized the dual-loyalties notion of federalism. And as a Canadian polisci/law geek, I think that is rather remarkable. But if that is the case, I would hope that Canadians can go one further. Embrace our federalist Constitution for what it is. An obvious example is health care. [Note to 2020: see above.] Provinces are in charge of health. Then why do we have the Canada Health Act? One province doesn't want universal single-payer health care? Fine, its government was democratically elected, it shall be our laboratory of democracy.
This may make some people nervous. It makes me nervous too. But if we can't allow the provincial governments the freedom to exercise their sovereignty in this clear area of provincial jurisdiction, then why do we even bother to keep them around? Inertia! The grand compromise of democratic politics! - Ed. Yes, I agree. Moreover, given the defining power of history, taking the federalism out of Canada would likely take the Canada out of Canada. I was just trying to think about it. Oh, and also, go away.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Boo!
Firstly - The problem isn't federalism. The problem is a constitution that is nearly impossible to amend so that we can keep the division of powers relevant.
If every decade or two we were able to sit down and say "you know, it makes no sense to have the provinces doing X while the feds to Y . . . let's switch that around" then everyone would be happy. But we can't do that, so we have to cram things into 19th century categories that don't make any sense any more. (PS - I think that it is not only our amending formula work that works against this. I think it has to do with the fact that there is not a lot of cross-over between the world of federal and provincial politics that there is in the States. A provincial premier would never make the federal government stronger because he knows he is never going to be in federal politics. The Governor of a state may think differently because he has his eyes on being a senator or a cabinet secretary one day . . . and vice versa).
Secondly - best example of the laboratory of democracy: health care. Ok, that was a while ago, so how about these: fixed election dates and electoral reform. Not important enough for you? How Ontario's experimentation of private-public partnership (3P). You might say that those were a disaster - but isn't a laboratory sometimes a place were you learn from mistakes?
Thirdly - My belief is that one's position on federalism depends on how your favourite political party does at the various levels. If you are Liberal supporter (or at least a guy who tends to believe in the same things as the Liberals even if he hates the Party itself), you are generally going to think a strong central government is the way to go and that the provinces just get in the way. You will probably feel exactly the opposite if you are a Conservative supporter. Believe me, a lot of these "more power to Ottawa" types would sing a very different tune if we had seen PM Harris' three straight majority governments. What that says to me is that most people craft an argument on federalism that suits their other political beliefs. And that's a bad way to set policy.
Fourthly (and finally) - Do you really have an editor or are you just doing a Kaus rip-off? Wait, don't answer that . . . I like the mystery.
I very much like and agree with your point about Canadian politicians not moving between the provincial and federal sphere (although, the point will lose a bit of its lustre when Bob Rae and Frank McKenna face off for the liberal leadership).
With respect to the amending formula, I think you are right from a constitutional law point of view. My concern was more that regardless of whether everything is in the right place, why do we have to bother with this fight.
Finally, on the laboratories point, I will defer to your wisdom and knowledge on these matters. On the one hand, it seems like there really isn't that much difference between the delivery of services in different provinces (save maybe Quebec), but I guess, on the other, I guess federalism saved Canadians outside of Ontario from 10 years of common sense revolution.
(oh, and finally finally, that was in fact Mickey Kaus' editor intervening in my posting.)
Post a Comment