Democracy in Canada Lecture Notes PDF

Democracy in Canada Cana 1001  Reminder: Social Media Deal Agenda Reminders and announcements Preliminary Learning Reflection E-mailed notes re possible PERs The Hip and the Ambiguities of Cdn nationalism and national identity The Character of Canadian Democracy...

Democracy in Canada Cana 1001  Reminder: Social Media Deal Agenda Reminders and announcements Preliminary Learning Reflection E-mailed notes re possible PERs The Hip and the Ambiguities of Cdn nationalism and national identity The Character of Canadian Democracy Parliamentary System Federalism The Charter First Past the Post Canadians Perceptions  First options for public lecture report relate to National Day of Truth and Reconciliation Treat with respect In that Listen with purpose Don’t record regard: Reflect (v. report) Description of the format the assignment can take on Moodle but feel free to check in if you have questions The Hip and Canadian Anxieties The Institutions and Character of Canadian Democracy Maybe a quick word of caution …  Spend this week looking at some of the What institutions of public life and the character of Canadian democracy. Raises key issues and questions (not going to discussion now. I put these out for your are we consideration): Reading: freedom and what it means, why important and what it entails (I don’t inherently mean to define doing freedom because … well … better minds than I). Aims of public life … Nature of politics Character of rights Supposed “crisis” of democracy Political apathy A touchy one: Freedom Might be historically changing Freedom is really good if you are not free Need to be careful in assuming that simplistic definitions of freedom – the ability to do/say what one wants – are appropriate or even good For instance, people who claim freedom to insult others would likely object if their boss exercised their claim to freedom to fire them because they were … Likewise … “crisis” of democracy Democracy (whatever this is), and I’ll try to give you a working definition might be in crisis But, other, more significant questions might be: Who thinks democracy is in crisis (and) Why? For instance: I periodically hear people say: “my candidate didn’t win, this shows democracy is not working” Maybe … but it might show that it is … Lurking behind all this might be bizarre effects of social media on politics and public life  Distinction between state and government Learning Parliamentary System Outcomes Federalism and key Constitution Rights terms Judicial Review Analogous Grounds Provisa: difficult topic to address Different people hold different conceptions of democracy There can be odd interactions between democracy, rights (a topic at which we will be looking), and the institutions that sustain them Put together: simplistic conceptions of “democracy” (and whether we are democratic) tend to break down Editorial: and can become rhetorical There is a distinction between the idea of democracy and “actually existing democracy” Create disjunctures between ideal/reality There is a need to understand the basics of the political system (federalism and constitution, etc.) Some people find this dry (and, we can ask why) A series of other potential problems (just to warn you in advance) This lecture is one in which we will be addressing several topics that may not line up exactly If you don’t find a smooth flow through the subject we are addressing, you are not alone There are connections but whether those connections amount to a cohesive whole is, in my books, an open question The reason for that might not be my own felicity with the subject matter but the nature of Canadian democracy itself. It may not always “add up.” Personal perspective: I have a love/hate relationship with Canadian democracy. As I explain it: lots I like. But I also think it is subject to confusion, produces odd results, disempowers specific social groups.  Establi Establish a common basic knowledge of sh the workings of government What are Indicat Indicate why the state and government e are important we trying to do? Highlig Highlight key Canadian political ht institutions Explain Explain key aspect of the Canadian political system that are often confused  Take two minutes to address the below. Think, write out, and then share with a classmate (or, classmates) near you: Let’s start List the three most important things government does? like this: think-pair- Why did you pick these three things? share Then … Does discussing them change your perspective? What did you come up with?  Transportation (including snow Some Military protection clearance) Passports and diplomatic Education relations (for international travel) things the Health care Signs and common weights and measures state does Safety inspections Media regulation (so not Water treatment and diversion everyone broadcasts on the same wavelength) Medicine approval Market regulation and economic Emergency services (police, fire, stabilization EMTs) Justice system Coast guard Archives records (preserves our Garbage collection and pollution past) remediation Amateur sport Social welfare measures Emergency shelters Science R and D Electricity (power)  The state and government are not the same thing (note: “in theory”) The state is the neutral bureaucratic infrastructure that operationalizes policy An A whole bunch of people work for the state Military Important Police Teachers Distinction Nurses Snowplow operators Road crews Custodians Etc. Institutions of Government and electoral system  Elected “representatives” of the people Governme Members of Parliament (federal) nt: MLAs (in NB but MPPs, MNAs, MHAs, etc. elsewhere) Councilors Governments (the people that we see on TV) Prime Minister/Premiers and Cabinets federally and provincially Mayor and councils in municipalities When you vote you vote for one of these folks  Federally and Provincially: don’t vote for for leaders Parliament Vote is for local representatives: country is divided ary System up into “ridings” Federally: 338 Elections are contested by political parties Liberals Conservatives NDP Green Bloc Quebecois People’s Party of Canada The leader of the party that wins the most ridings (usually) becomes prime minister (premier) Source: Elections Canada Source: Elections Canada Province Number NL 6 NS 11 NB 10 PEI 4 QC 78 ON 121 MN 14 SK 14 AB 34 BC 42 Territories 1 each  Two houses of Parliament Parliament House of Commons (elected) ary System Senate (appointed) Minister (people responsible for policy or administration: health, finance, military, etc.) needs to be elected members of the House Governor General (King’s representative) approval is needed (but always given)  How does this work? How are laws made? Source: Canada History Project Making a law (Library of Parliament) If this stuff is confusing It is … I suspect that that confusion is one of the reasons why people are frustrated with government and the state Federalism Canada operates through a federal system Two orders of government: federal government (in Ottawa) and provinces Federalism = system of government in which each order is “sovereign” (that is has the final say) in certain specified areas (that are called “jurisdictions”) One of the originating ideas of Canada Combine diversity with unity Provinces: education, health care, civil law, natural resources within the province, alcohol Federal government: currency, national defence, international relations, criminal law There is often some confusion on the part of Canadians about which order of government does what The Constitution What is a constitution ? Rhetorical question Simple Answer Constitution is the “rules of the game” Set of basic or higher rules through which governance is organized Canada: specify what federal and provincial governments do (and can’t do) Canadian constitution is not a single document but includes: Old British Charter or North America Rights and Older imperial Act Freedoms proclamations (Constitutional (1982) Act) (1867) Semi- constitutional Traditions and Key court laws (OFL, practices decisions multiculturalis (PMO) m) What about these things called “rights” … you mentioned them last day Rights Rights are seen as particularly important for several reasons Simplest level: rights are protections about which there are several key considerations (connected to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) Second level: establish relationships that were supposed to regulate relationships between First Peoples and Canada (treaty rights). Largely, of course, not done this because Canada has elected to ignore, fight, break, or not enforce them Language of the good: a conception of mechanism to realize one’s self as an individual Nuances Each of these levels of meaning can be subject to misconception Set out in a number of places (Charter, human rights acts, court decisions, workers compensation boards, arbitration panels, etc.) Most rights that are specified in the Charter are readily recognizable: Due process of law Free speech and expression Equal benefit of the law and equality before the law Freedom of conscience Freedom of assembly and association Rights Serve a Number of Purposes Serve to protect people from arbitrary treatment of the state (due process of law) Serve to advance democracy (speech allows people to question government policy, to form and lobby for alternative perspectives) and inclusion (equity) Ensure cultural creativity (speech and expression) Provide burden on the state to protect citizens (security of the person) Protect from majority (equality: you cannot vote on another person’s rights) Central to individual’s conception of the self (conscience) Considerati ons You don’t lose a right by not practicing it (say, right to vote = you don’t lose your write to speech – say to complain about government – if you fail to exercise your right to vote). Argument is a moral argument relating to normative standards You can’t give up a right for another person (a parent cannot forfeit a right for a child, eg.) Limits of Rights Section 1: rights must be consistent with the operation of a free and democratic society That is, it would be a perversion of justice if a right were used to subvert democracy For instance: there is no right to discriminate Section 33: Notwithstanding Governments can suspend some categories of rights Intended as an emergency measure (not a routine measure and certainly not a pre-emptive measure designed to provide for policy that a government has strong reason to suspect violates the Charter) Limits of Rights My right cannot infringe on another’s (my right to practice my religion cannot allow me to oppress another person) I cannot use my right to endanger another person (fire in a crowded building argument) Rights are not a get out of jail free card Speech example Rights don’t exempt one from responsibility for one’s actions Right and Good A key confusion: right with good Many of the things that make life meaningful and important cannot be realized by rights (love, fellowship, meaningful work) How are rights protected? Through the courts Complaint about courts: Undemocratic Over-reach True: courts are not representative of Canadian society But also begs the question: what else are we supposed to do Adjudication through law might be preferable to naked violence Rights-seeking group that is using the courts is doing exactly what they are supposed to do Judicial Review Process by which the courts protect rights Assessment requires a case … or, not: reference Reference re Quebec (does a province have a right to separate from Canada) most famous but LGBTQ equality is likely a close second “throw out” or “strike down”: rarely happens Courts operate through a process of interaction with legislatures “read in” or “read out”  Short answer: no Principle: analogous grounds Key difference from US Does a right (principle of “strict construction”) need to be If recognition of a right is consistent with the intentions of written down the Charter, the courts will assume it exists for it to exist? For example, there is nothing in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that specifically prohibits discrimination against red- headed people. Yet, the courts would not permit this since the objective of the Charter is to prevent discrimination and promote equality and inclusion How do I know if a Joseph Heath: “nobility of right” (this is a moral test) Issue: purpose to which the right is being right is put is important A right that advances something that is good (equity, say) then it has being a noble purpose Rights claim is being used to limit what is good, it is not good The use of rights to subvert, used silence, create confusion, etc., impede equality or create manifest inequalities right? How are you hanging in? Voting and Democracy Voting and Democracy Canada’s electoral system is called “Single Member Plurality” (or, First Past the Post) Whoever gets the most votes wins Sounds good but … what if there are more than two candidates? The Canadian systems seems straight forward but there are a number of wrinkles in it  First: Party Share FPP of Vote distorts Liberal 40 results Conservative 30 Fictional NDP 30 Example First Past the Post (source: Fair Vote Canada)  Source: Fair Vote Canada Translates pluralities into majorities Complexities of the vote are lost (that is the range of perspectives in government are narrower than the voting intentions of Canadians) This may be the case even in individual ridings MPs should vote the way their constituents want? Sure … but what if their constituents want a bunch of different or contradictory things For instance, some people might want a tax cut; other want road repairs (that require state spending) Sometimes … source: Springtide Voter turnout issues Voter turnout rate is rising in Canada (and we will look at that) Not always the case and if we factor voter turnouts into election results … we might see other problems 2021 federal election: 62.3 of eligible Cdns voted. This means about 20%+ voted Liberal (the winning party) 2008 AB provincial election 40.6% turnout 21.4% of Albertans voted for the “winning party” At times it looks like the winning candidate is: none of the above FPP and Regionalism FPP tends to “reward” parties with regionalized support so the federal election map looks like this: Source elections Canada Regional Distortions: Artificial Divisions? Seems to suggest the west is Conservative, for instance, and other parts of the country … not really, or rural Quebec is dominated by separatists FPP: rewarding winners minimizes the degree of support for other parties (options, ideas, values) that there are in different parts of the country. IOW, the divisions that are expressed by our representations may not be as deep in real life (there might be more that connects us) Studies of social values, for instance, don’t replicate that stark divisions we see on the political map FPP can disguises other potentially important distinctions What do Canadians think?  Media focus might over-represent specific concerns and minimize Current longer-term dis-ease Events: Data: Cdns often unhappy with specific institutions but more satisfied Most important things (source Gidingel) Freedoms, voting 21.2 Charter 10.8 Free Speech 10.2 Tolerance 7 Equality and fairness 5.3 Negative views PM (leaders) 13.8 Electoral system 9.8 Corruptions and dishonesty 9.7 Special interest influence 7.7 Poverty 6.1 Political parties 6.1 Source: Polling Guru Broadbent Institute  What do Canadians think?  Some of the problems are explained by the system (Canadians might be right to be dissatisfied with the working of their electoral system Longer Some of it might be based on personal Term perception (although the degree to Trends which personal and social perspective interact might be important to consider) Research by Samara shows that even elected representatives feel disempowered