Policy Forum: Constraints on Provincial Fiscal Autonomy Arising from Tax Collection Agreements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the end of the Second World War, successive agreements aimed at ensuring better coordination between Canada and the provinces in terms of income taxation have increased provincial fiscal autonomy. The current tax collection agreements (TCAs) give the provinces considerable leeway in designing their tax policies, although these agreements inevitably impose some constraints on provincial fiscal autonomy. This article examines those constraints, largely on the basis of government documents obtained through an access-to-information request. From a federal tax collection and administration standpoint, the constraints do not seem insurmountable, and in some respects, there is even a willingness on the part of the federal government to reduce them. As for the provinces' need to preserve the similarity between the provincial and federal income tax systems, there does not appear to be any room for manoeuvre with regard to the common tax base, but the framework for federal changes to the tax base deserves to be explored. In light of the constraints examined and potential solutions, as well as the colossal task of setting up a separate provincial tax administration, it would likely be difficult for a province that is party to a TCA to justify withdrawal from the agreement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".