Policy-Making and Canadian Intergovernmental Relations

Reviews Policy-Making and Canadian Intergovernmental Relations ECONOMIC RESURGENCE AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL AGENDA: THE CASE OF THE EAST COAST FISHERIES. A. Paul Pross and Susan McCorquodale. Kingston: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queens University, 1987. TUG OF WAR: OTTAWA AND THE PROVINCES UNDER TRUDEAU AND MULRONEY. David A. Milne. Toronto: Lorimer, 1986. FEDERAL STATE, NATIONAL ECONOMY. Peter M. Leslie. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987. CANADA: THE STATE OF THE FEDERATION 1986. Ed. Peter M. Leslie. Kingston: Institute ofIntergovernmental Relations, Queens University, 1987. Royal commissions tend to subvert scholarly agendas. The Macdonald Commission was no exception, at least as it applied to the study of Canadian federalism and intergovernmental relations. Prior to the establishment of that Commission 's research factory , a subtle transformation had been taking place in the range of issues federalism scholars were studying. We had witnessed not so much an abandonment of the study of institutions and constitutional questions as a broadening of horizons. One of the most welcome developments was the courtship between federalism and public policy . Although policy studies were in the ascendancy, they had never gained a position of prominence, partly because the preference for the case-study method posed some limitations. Nevertheless, many policy studies had begun to adopt broader synthetic approaches and to look 150 critically at the processes and institutions of executive federalism .' With its obsession for institutional tinkering and specific policy questions, the Macdonald Commission almost stifled this emergent trend. Happily, a number of the books on federalism which have appeared since the report of the Commission have once again taken up the public policy focus to great effect. The study of specific issues of public policy-making in the federal context is perhaps the area of the largest growth in the study of federalism.2 The ~heer bulk of information and the high quality of investigation is truly staggering, but the focus admittedly has some limitations. It tends to emphasize the governmental actors who design and implement policies. The policy approach often neglects certain important elements such as parties or popular attitudes. Also, as Richard Simeon points out, "too often [casestudy ] analysis is subordinated to exhaustive description; the unique takes precedence over the general."·' Canadian political scientists entertain conflicting concepts about the way in which federalism affects policy outcomes . Consequently, it is important to determine the circumstances under which federalism affects policy outcomes, the values that tend to be maximized or minimized in particular circumstances, and theeffectiveness of the process in managing conflict. It is clear that the impact of divided jurisdiction and the mechanisms of intergovernmental relations rarely affect public policy in a simple or direct fashion. Instead, their impact can often only be seen along with other factors or as manifested in other concerns. Strikingly, three of the four books considered here are connected in some fashion to the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations at Queen's University. In recent years, this research centre has produced an impressive array of publications including an extensive series of discussion papers, an annual Year in Review, a series on aboriginal rights, and several penetrating case studies of public policy-making in the Canadian federal Revue detudes canadiennes Vol. 23, No. 3 (Automne 1988 Fall) system. In the latter category fall significant works by Keith Banting, Allan Tupper, and Catherine Murray. Two of the works discussed here were produced in-house, testifying to the tremendous potential offered to academic publishing by the new technology (although sometimes at the cost of attentive editing). A recent Institute volume entitled Economic Resurgence and the Constitutional Agenda: The Case of the East Coast Fisheries by A. Paul Pross and Susan McCorquodale is an outstanding example of the case-study method and fills a noticeable void in our repertoire of monographic-length reviews of policy fields. As the title denotes, this study reinforces the proposition found elsewhere in the literature that the intergovernmental decision-making process promotes greater attention to jurisdictional questions than to substantive issues. Other studies have confirmed that the tendency to subordinate substantive concerns to issues ofjurisdiction is most prevalent in areas of shared jurisdiction. The authors of this study argue that the federal government's decision to declare management responsibility over the 200-mile...