Time for a New Kind of Federalism?

A new focus on local control could be just what Canada needs.

Since 1993, any talk of revisiting the underlying basis for Canadian federalism has been verboten. Few politicians or public officials have been willing to mention it, as many believe the wounds from the failed constitutional attempts in Canada are still not healed. Instead, divisions between Quebec and the West have become the defining feature of Canadian politics, and national unity issues are too often used to debase, demonize, and delegitimize.

There are a number of reasons why a big idea on federalism could change not only the course of this election campaign, but of this country. It is not without risks, of course, but with less than a week to go, it is time to go big or go home. The kind of renegotiation I have in mind builds and refashions Phillip Blond’s work on the Big Society. It focuses on more local control and plays on the genuine concern by many Canadians that their democracy is slipping away, increasingly centralized in Ottawa and within the Prime Minister’s Office.

While the ultimate impact of the Big Society in the United Kingdom as embraced by Prime Minister David Cameron is unknown, a new approach to Canadian federalism can be based on the inarguable fact that top-down approaches to governing are increasingly at odds with emergent expectations about the role and requirements of meaningful democratic participation.

Both Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP Leader Jack Layton have made statements that appear to suggest a willingness to rethink federalism. For example, Ignatieff appears to be willing to be open a discussion about federalism via health transfer payments. For his part, Layton has offered to revisit constitutional issues to bring Quebec back into Canada. Both leaders could usefully build on these statements and offer Canadians some practical means to provide more opportunities to participate in our democratic system, and build more citizen input and local involvement into decisions that affect us in our own communities.

A focus on local control as part of a new federalist project in Canada is appealing on a number of levels. Politically, it stands in stark contrast to the controlling and micro-managerial style of Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, and fits nicely with pledges by Layton and Ignatieff for open government and democratic reform. An electoral mandate for a reimagined role for Ottawa would also give either (or both) the credibility they would need to reform Ottawa and repair the damage done to our parliamentary institutions over the last five years.

Philosophically, if Ignatieff is truly trying to win the centre-right vote, he could hardly go wrong extolling the virtues of more local control. Three years after Harper promised a charter of open federalism, the ability to govern through the public purse has proven too tempting. By continuing a trend started by Jean Chrétien, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have centralized Canadian parliamentary democracy in truly unprecedented ways. By turning the tables on Harper, a focus on local control provides the political means to explore the process of governing, and a new arrow in what has been a policy-heavy quiver.