Canada: The State of the Federation. Canadian Political Culture(s) in Transition (review)

For more than a decade, the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations at Queen's University has annually performed a public service by publishing a volume of edited papers under the title Canada: The State of the Federation. One of the prime benefits of this undertaking has been the concluding chapter's chronology of important intergovernmental events of the past year. Other chapters have been eclectic in content, influenced largely by the main events the chronology records. The issue for 2001 is different, however. It ambitiously propounds the theme of the book's subtitle.

This project is ambitious not only because it breaks with past practice but because the concept of political culture is abstract and elusive. Too often in the literature it serves as a residual category for what defies explanation by other means. Here the editors call the concept 'nebulous' and, with the emphasis largely on what is described as a 'holistic' definition, do nothing to dispel the reputation of political studies as one of the softer social sciences.

Fifteen chapters are divided almost equally under the headings 'regional perspectives,' 'new identities,' and 'federal politics.' There are no prizes for guessing the geographical bases for the first five chapters, nor are there many surprises in the substance of the second five: the Charter and citizenship are as predictable as discussions about multicultural and Aboriginal concerns.

So much recent writing on Canadian federalism is about the channelling of politics away from the centre, down to the provinces or up to international bodies because of modern technology, free trade, and the personalization of politics, that what does come as a surprise is the comparative flatness of the regional analysis found in this book. Even here there are variations. Jennifer Smith vigorously demolishes the stereotypical view - its representative proponent here being Michael Bliss - of the Atlantic region as 'old Canada,' by which is meant it is patronage-ridden and parochial, and the rest of the country 'new' because of the triumph of meritocracy. Mesmerized by a mythical provincial forest, Bliss fails to see, according to Smith, the distinctive provincial trees.

When it comes to the section on 'federal politics,' two points call for notice. Several of the papers talk not about a dominating federal presence but of a centralizing political culture - yet they are not the same thing. In a chapter on brokerage politics, Matthew Mendelsohn maintains that the Liberals, past masters at accommodation, have since the Trudeau era adopted a narrower or, at least, fixed view of Canada and shown an intolerance for those who do not share that perspective. Here is one explanation for the rising western complaint about exclusion at the centre by an elite it holds synonymous with the federal government. Patrick James and Michael Lusztig say the country coheres because the Liberals use 'social program spending to purchase national unity and constitutional peace.' But only up to a point, for, as Reg Whitaker demonstrates, the Liberals are 'blue' on tax cuts and deficits and 'red' only on cultural and social issues.

This is not the Canada of the political science textbooks. It may not even be a federal Canada in the traditional meaning of that term. That there is room to doubt becomes clear in Hamish Telford's singular contribution: 'The Reform Party/Canadian Alliance and Canada's Flirtation with Republicanism.' The Liberals, he says, 'are about difference, and the Reform/Canadian Alliance (RCA) about equality.' It is the RCA's 'philosophy of oneness' reflected in their operational populism, as in the promotion of instruments of direct democracy, that lends support to Telford's thesis. It also condemns the RCA to permanent opposition.

Much more could be said about the Telford chapter and about other contributions. It is a testament to their...