Canadian Government and Politics Notes PDF

Canadian Government and Politics Notes Chapter 3: Responsible Government - In the earliest stage of the British regime, the crown had both legislative and executive powers. Meaning they could both make laws and administer them, this led to abuses of power as the monarchy had too much...

Canadian Government and Politics Notes Chapter 3: Responsible Government - In the earliest stage of the British regime, the crown had both legislative and executive powers. Meaning they could both make laws and administer them, this led to abuses of power as the monarchy had too much power and they are unelected. - English commoners and nobles established the Parliament which was an assembly that had legislative power. - **Montesquieu** cited the British regime as an example of the principle of the **Separation of Powers.** - Montesquieu claimed that the best way to protect freedom and to prevent abuse of political power is to ensure that legislative and executive powers are assigned to separate bodies. - American founders saw the British regime as "tyrannical". Placed legislative hands in the bicameral legislature known as the Congress, executive powers in the hands of the President. - Lower and Upper Canada were kept separate as they were ruled by imperial governors appointed by the Crown. Provinces didn't gain legislative powers until the 18^th^ century. Executive powers still laid at the hands of the crown. - Discontent with the colonial rule in both upper and lower Canada caused armed rebellions in 1837. - British government sent Lord Durham to Canada to assess the situation. Durham stated that the colonies should dissolve and replace it with the principle of separation and the principle of **responsible government.** - **Responsible Government:** Executive responsible for a democratically elected legislative body. Governor had to choose his advisors from among those who had been democratically elected. - Responsible government was introduced first in Nova Scotia and then to all of Canada in 1867. - In Responsible governments, executive leaders must answer to the House of Commons. Meaning the executive must explain its actions to the House and the House must have the power to act if it disagrees with those actions. The House of Commons ensures that the executive branch is acting under a democratic rule. 1. The Crown will use their power only "On the advice of" it's ministers. Ministers' advice is the commands that the crown must act on. 2. The crown usually appoints only MPs as their ministers and advisors. Putting the Crowns ministers in the House makes them more accessible to other MPs who wish to criticize or question them. 3. The ministers will act as a team or "ministry" led by the Prime Minister, with each minister sharing the responsibility for all policy decisions. This convention is called Collective Responsibility. 4. The Crown will appoint and maintain the ministers who have the confidence of the House of Commons (the support of the majority). 5. When the ministry loses the confidence of the House, the Prime Minister is either to resign or request new elections. If Prime Minister resigns, there needs to be a new ministry. Requesting a new election can either, have the electors vote for the ministry that doesn't have Houses confidence or they will vote for a majority MPs who don't support existing ministry, meaning Prime Minister has to promptly resign. - **Responsible government= Parliamentary Government.** Parliament has absolute control over legislative and executive powers. - **Fusion of Powers:** A regime where legislative and executive power are fused together in a cabinet that is accountable to an assembly of the people's elected representatives. **Responsible Government as "cabinet government"** - Arguments about responsible government weakened the cabinet by subordinating it to the control of the House of Commons. - The responsible government makes the House of Commons the ultimate authority for both legislative and executive action. - In reality, it actually strengthened the power of the cabinet. **Responsible government= Cabinet government** - Cabinet is composed of MPs who have the confidence of a majority of the members in house. - If the majority consists of MPs from the same party that loyally supports the measures proposed by the cabinet in order to keep their party in office, then cabinet has control over legislative activity. **Majority and Minority Government** - Ministry that takes office is said to either have a majority or minority government. - Majority Government: A situation in which the party that forms the government controls over half the seats in the House of Commons. They're nearly guaranteed the confidence of the House. - Minority Government: No single party controls a majority of the seats in the House of Commons. The government will be formed by a party that controls less than half the seats. - Its more common to have majority seats rather than minority. - Since 1867 there have been 14 minority governments. - For example, Joe Clark formed a minority government in 1979 for the PCs, but announced he would run it as a majority government not catering towards the House of commons, this costed Clark his confidence and it was resigned and Liberals won. - Majority and Minority governments keeps their opposition divided. For example, in 2008 the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois were ready to vote out Conservative. Harper then created the Conservatives budget similar to a Liberals so that they would have the Liberal party on their side. - Superiority of Majority government rests on greater stability, longevity, and vigour. - However, minority governments can last just as long if they have good leadership. **Forming a government** - Citizens only elect their local MPs. People's role on the selection of their government is an indirect one. - The core of responsible government is that it is accountable for the House of Commons. Having people elect the government directly would make the government accountable for the people as well. **Four Conventions for the Formation of a Government:** 1. Ultimate responsibility for choosing the government must rest with the Crown. The Crown will select a prime minister who will nominate the other members of government. 2. The Crown must choose the person whose government is most likely to have the confidence of the House of Commons. This brings a democratic element into the process by ensuring the head of government has its votes. 3. The government remains in office until the Prime Minister resigns on its behalf. 4. Prime Minister must resign if their government has lost the confidence of the House of Commons and has no prospect of winning the confidence of the newly elected House. **Two Types of Resignation:** - A Prime Minister may decide to leave for private life and will resign their position as prime minister, party leader, and MP. - Or a Prime Minister will lose the confidence of the House and will be forced to resign as Prime Minister, but can keep being the party leader and MP (depending on the judgement of their party and new election). - **Coalition:** A formal sharing of the cabinet---the governor general would have to appoint as Prime Minister the person they designated as the leader of the coalition. - A coalition had happened in the 1985 election, the decisive role was played by the opposition parties. **Institutional Implications of Responsible Government** - There are a few key principles different from the United States. That including, elections, cabinet appointments, the relationship between the head of government and the head of state, and party discipline. 1. The timing of the elections. In the US, the principle of separation of powers implies that each branch of government is elected separately. Neither branch depends on the confidence of the other for its legitimacy. Elections are held at a fixed, predictable time period. Whereas in Canada, timing of elections is called by the Prime Minister. Intervals between elections must not exceed five years. Traditionally, the Prime Minister will call the election after four years. This give Prime Ministers party a partisan advantage as they will call it when polls are highest for them. 2. Cabinet Appointments. American president may choose for the cabinet virtually any American citizen. The only restriction is if the President selects a member of the congress they must resign their congressional seat for the cabinet. Richard Nixon reached out to Harvard University for international relations expert Dr. Henry Kissinger as his Secretary of the State. Whereas a Prime Minister is restricted to select a cabinet from the House of Commons. This means a Prime Ministers choice of cabinet ministers is restricted to a very small group which few of whom have substantial expertise in the area they're appointed to. 3. Head of Government and head of state. Canadian regime draws a distinction between Head of government (Prime Minister) and formal head of state (the queen). In the states the President fulfills both roles. **Week 7: Parliament** - Parliament was built to be superior to every other government. MPs are supposed to represent that everyone who lives in their riding, even if they did not elect them. - MP could be either a delegate or a trustee. - A delegate who follows the unfiltered opinion of their constituents. They advocate and report for their people even if they don't agree with it. - A trustee is someone who is entrusted to make decisions on behalf of their constituents. Citizens vote for them because they trust them to use their good judgement to act on their behalf. - MPs are supposed to evaluate the proposals. There are question periods, member statements, etc., that allow MPs to act as both trustees and delegates. - David Smith: The house is a representative body the only one that speaks on behalf of the Canadians. - Janet Ajzenstat: National identity is about Parliament, its inclusive. Members are supposed to represent and speak for all our people. - Refers to the idea that parliament should mirror the demographic profile of our country. - 50% should be women, 22% should be ethnic minorities, 5% should be Indigenous people. - MPs tend to be white, male, mid 50s, middle to upper class. - In 2007, 79% were male opposed to 1941, 99.6% were male. - **Historical institutionalism:** Our political institutions were designed to serve elite and those designs remain path dependent. - **Nascent Ambition**: You have an inclination to consider a candidacy. Consider the cost and benefits of running. - **Expressive Ambition**: the actual decision to run for office, you have interest in running. You have to have the factors to run such as money, status, no children, etc. - To run there are factors that drive people to run for office such as, money, status, education, career such as Law as those skills are the same as political careers. - **Relationally embedded model:** Women are more likely to consider the kinds of relationships they have with each other, what effect will the position have on their relationships with their children, spouse, friends, etc. - The lack of inclusiveness of the House of Commons are an example of historical institutionalism. For example, the rise of sexual harassment in the house of commons. - **Sociological Institutionalism:** Argues that societies are governed by the rules of the game. Spend ore tie on informal rules, norms, and unspoken expectations. - Women and power create discomfort is an example of an informal rules in society. - **Positive feedback loop:** An event happens that reinforces the existing form. Women losing in an important role is an example. Kim Campbell was the first female prime minister when she came to power the PC were unpopular, and she lost they went from a majority government to a minority and they all blamed Campbell. - **Path Dependency:** New parties like NDP attempt to be more inclusive and not follow the path dependency of the historical institutionalism embedded in politics. Usually established parties appoint women to run in unwinnable ridings to say they're inclusive. - More women than men in party stronghold, that mean 59% of women were put into unwinnable ridings. 25% of men were put in safe seats compared to the 17% of women. **Substantive Representation** - Suggests that politicians can represent any group, you don't have to be a woman to represent women. - We don't have substantive representation because of party discipline. **Party Discipline** - Make sure that people work together to create a common goal. Parties have whips their job is to make sure the people in the party work together as a team. - "Toe the party line" means do what the party says. Doing so, increases chances of getting promoted in the cabinet which is important for money, influence, and prestige. - Party leaders can appoint people to different committees, offices, research funding, parking spots, etc., to get those perks you have to follow the party's rules. - You can be kicked out of the party and be forced to sit as an independent if you defy the party. - Early parliaments were very weak so there were many independent riders. - French Canadians MPS did not like the idea that their money was being spent on British military. House of commons invented the idea of Closure where at a time the debate is shut down and voting and just pass the law. Sometimes we don't need to debate, in times of crisis they pass the laws right away. - Canada has had two dominant parties, but we've also had a lot of third parties. For example, progressive party, Green party, and PPC. People who disagree with Liberals and Conservatives you could form your own party. **Reforming the House** - Let's make the House of Commons bigger is one reform that has come up. You can have more majorities, free votes, provides MPs with more resources separate from the party leaders, and reform parliamentary committees makes the house more substantively and descriptively bigger. **The Senate in its Ideal Form** - In 2014, Liberals were third, Trudeau ended party discipline in the senate. - British Upper House (House of Lords), idea was that the Canadian senate was supposed to give a voice to the West Atlantic regions. - Sober Second Thought: Members of house were elected, they're likely to focus on short term goals. Senate would not be flamed by passions, they would focus on the greater good of Canada not worry about getting re-elected, which is why senators are appointed. - You had to own property over a certain amount, you have to have a net worth over \$4000, and you are 30, you are eligible for the senate originally. - It was meant to be less partisan and less political. - Uses regional representation. **Descriptive Representation in the Senate** - The senate is better on descriptive representation than the house of commons. - There have always been more women in the senate than the house of commons. - In 2016, women made up of 46% of senate, minorities were 15%, Indigenous is 5.7% in the senate compared to the 3% in the house of commons. - Why is it better? Senators are appointed by the governor general through the advice of the Prime Minister. As women issues start to grow the Prime Minister meets societies demands through appointing a female senator. - Easy way for government to meet the demands of the public by providing more representation. **Substantiative Representation figures** - How many times did the senate veto the bills. Dots represent the proportion of bills vetoed. Post WW2 it drops and becomes stable. - Proportion of bills amended by government. Lots of activity in the early years but overtime senate becomes less active. Overtime party discipline has increased, ideas and bills are blocked depending on what the party's majority is going for. - Party loyalty score, shows us that very early there was a lot of lose fish, overtime, we have scores at the maximum level. Shows us that party loyalty has increased overtime. Idea that prime minister appoints party loyalist, they choose the people who are the most loyal. Result of strong party discipline, senators want access to the cabinet and Prime Minister. If you are vetoing all their bills Prime Ministers will not want to meet with you, so Senators will do things they don't want to in order to gain influence. - In 2013, Justin Trudeau became leader of Liberals, he dissolved party discipline in the senate. He thought the senate was destroyed by party politics so he kicked all of his senators out. There are now no liberal senators in the senate. - The loyalty scores for Liberal and Conservatives were at its max. Statistically the change had no effect. In terms of voting there is no difference in party discipline and loyalists. - Average number of contacts between Senators and lobbyists, members of Parliament there is a lot of lobbying, Senators have less lobbying, more lobbying going up after the Liberal senators are kicked out therefore less party discipline and less party loyalists. **Speeches in the Senate** - X axis- year, Y axis- proportion of interventions of women issues. Shows that when you have party discipline there isn't a lot of variation, pattern is similar. Reflects that they were following their leaders. - Change when liberals are kicked out in 2014, evidence of ore independence among senators. Another interpretation is that nothing has changed, both senators just talk about what their party leader has said just relaying the message and policies. **Do we need to reform or abolish the senate?** - In Alberta they hold fake elections, the prime minister can appoint or disapprove the winners of the election. Harper has followed it but Trudeau did not. - We should have term limits, maybe senators serve one eight-year term. - We should change the distribution of seats to make it more equal. The west provinces have the same number of senators as Ontario. **Tutorial: Is Party Discipline a strength or a weakness of our parliamentary system? Does it enhance or weaken representation and democracy?** - I think party discipline is a weakness in our parliamentary system. This is because it makes MPs, ministers, and senators subjected to the Prime Ministers power and the parties' ideologies even though they may have good ideas for reforms and policies. I think it creates a disadvantage within our political system as it only allows for one person and parties ideas and voice to be heard. - I think it's important to have a balance when it comes to party discipline within our parties because if done too much it corrupts democracy. It does not allow for free speaking and opinions within parties and MPs must go along with the Prime Minister - To a certain extent, Party discipline allows for exploitation within the party and feeds drama for the media. It's useful for voters to go for a party with clarity and stability. - If done right, Party discipline can be extremely positive and useful for the strengthening of our parliamentary system. So overall, I think there needs to be a balance towards enacting party discipline in our House of commons in order for the positives to outweigh the negatives. **Week 8: The Constitution** - When change happens, the change remains consistent with the original design this is called Path Dependency. - Constitution is the supreme law of the land it sets out basic rules of the country - Peace, order, and good government - It contains written and unwritten elements, formal and informal elements. - Elements of our unwritten constitution would be governor general appoints who the prime minister wants - Bill of rights, list of individual and collective rights - Details about citizenship who has it and what they entail., - Gives a blueprint how the democracy works, in Canada we are a Westminster representative democracy - What are the functions of constitutional courts, roles, powers, etc. - Amending formula, a set of rules on how the constitution gets changed., - **Federalism, charter of rights and freedoms, and responsible government are 3 pillars of Canadas constitution**. **Federalism** - Federal government doesn't have authority over provincial government they're equal. - Federal government have control over military, banking, international affairs. - Provincial government controls education, healthcare, etc. - Federalism was a adopted as a means to convince Quebec, a way to convince the French to join confederation. **Responsible government** - Adopted from England. Constitutional principle that a government must maintain the support of the legislature to remain in power. - If they lose support of the House the PM must dissolve their government. - House has the power to hold cabinet accountable. - We have separation of powers. **Charter** - In 1982 Canada adopted rights and freedoms. Group rights such as women's rights and Indigenous people's rights. - Mobilizing and protect identities against the governments. **Supreme Court of Canada** - Court said there are a number of other pillars in Canadas system. 4 Pillars include: - Federalism, it signals democratic participation - Democracy, free and fair elections and is representative - Rule of law, entitle Canadians to a have a stable, predictable, and ordered society to conduct their affairs. - Protection of Minorities, reflected in the Charter. - To ensure that English Canadians protect their dominance with a parliamentary federalism government, and to prevent civil war and convince the Francophones to join them. **Hegemonic Preservation Theory** - Some people argue the reason why we adopted the charter is because of hegemonic preservation, English Canadians were trying to preserve their power over Canada. - People in Canada realized we needed to start protecting the French language and bilingual laws. - Charter transfers power away from parliament. - Supreme Court of Canada was ruling in favour of the federal government **Explanations** - Fragment theory, argues that the patterns we observe is the result of Canadas fragments of Europeans society that brought their culture and their views here to rule Canada. Implanted their values of authority and power when they immigrated to Canda, when they began to build political systems, it was built on European fragments. - 1^st^ fragment: French immigrants, feudalism believed in social classes such as barons and peasants. The rich had to help the poor (Catholicism) - English immigrants: Liberal/tory touch beliefs loyalists. A set of beliefs of the importance of individual freedom, minimal government, etc. - Conservative/tory beliefs, argues that we should be listen authority accept that social inequality is natural. Greater emphasis on community and collective rights. - Canada was built on English and French fragments that formed its political institutions in 1867. **Immigration:** - Weisman argues there was 5 waves, France, Loyalist, Britain, Britain/US. Eastern Europe, Asia/South Europe/Caribbean/Latin America - The earlier you come the more you set the institutions in terms of path dependencyj. - Reform liberals believed in free markets, less government intervention, give everyone the necessities of life like education and rights then you are on your own. Classical liberal thinks every man for himself. - Labour socialists, believed in egalitarianism interested in equality. A lot of them moved to the West. - Populist Liberal, a lot of American immigrated to Alberta. - Deferential came from Europe, diverse of ideologies many assimilated into society. - After WW2, individual equality, rights, liberal. Many settled into Urban areas such as cities. Manya argue because they came late so they don't have much influence on our politics. Others argue that they do as change comes from the cities. - Institutions are product of values and beliefs that immigrants bring to Canada. Sequencing of values get implanted matter; early immigration groups have more influence. - Immigrants have to choose either to integrate or mobilize and push for change. - Argument is that we are all Canadian because we all have the same rights and freedoms under the charter. - Argue that Canada isn't a sovereign country, at our founding many people were excluded from their input. Confederation was a deal among elites. - Fathers of Confederation wrote a letter it is not the people creating it is the imperial parliament creating the constitution. If you let the people decide civil war and political corruption happens opposed to letting the elite and educated decide. - Built on poor foundations anti-democratic. **The Pattern** - **British North America Act 1867** - Royal Proclamation of 1763 (7 years' war) , to solidify English rule in North America to allow English settlers to assimilate the French. Civil law changed to Common law. Settlers cannot require indigenous lands unless they are purchased or transferred by the Crown, wanted to reward their Indigenous allies. Didn't last long, settlers of new France were angry about it. British government realized it would work if they wanted peace. - Then act the **Quebec Act of 1774,** allowed Catholics to serve in the government, etc. - **Constitutional Act of 1791**, created animosity between French English relations. Giving each colonies their own represented assembly and advisors. - **1837 Rebellion and Lord Durham**, English settlers wanted more freedom from British rule. Lord Durham recommends England pass the act of union of 1840, created one legislature. Canada east and west have the same amount of representation. - **What led to confederation?** Afraid of Britain drawing from the empire. Easier to remove tax barriers, build railroads. Lots of frustration of the colonials system of government. - **George Brown Solution,** we needed a federal solution, English Canada would control federal French would control the provincial government. Wanted a unitary state to avoid the American federalism, to complete it all you needed was an act of parliament. - Each colony should have an election. Both houses agreed to confederation. French were more divided about it. - -Compact between two founding peoples (British and the French) some argue it was a contract between all provinces. - Sovereignty is divided between federal and provincial governments - Powers like reservation. Any residual powers belongs to the Federal government like Ai. - Democracy our constitutions allows that we must have elections every 5 years, spending keeps the government loyal to the people. - In 1867 BNA created a parliament supremacy. It is replaced in constitutional supremacy. - Canada had to ask Britain to change constitutional laws. - 1867-1981 had minor modifications like in 1940, unemployment insurance, judicial committee of the Privy Council. 1931 Statute of Westminster - 1960s when society changes dramatically after WW2. Significant social change in Quebec. It becomes modern moved away from farming to manufacturing, people starting to turn away from the Catholic church, wants an assertive powerful French to protect the French language and culture. Lots of unhappiness in the provincial level. - Federal government begins conversations with the provincial governments to appease them. - Victoria Charter including the amending formulas, included a list of rights and freedoms, protecting the rights of French citizens and language, change who had control over income security, wanted to prevent government from cancelling provincial legislation. Premier Bourass experienced opposition from his party as they didn't see enough pros for Quebec. - Early 1980s constitution reforms started. PQ first separatist party in Quebec. Quebec thinks they need to separate and think of their own version of Canada. Result was 59.56% said no they don't want to separate and 40.44% said yes. Leader at the time was Pierre Trudeau's solution was to build a cohesive identity such as the Charter. - Proposed an amending formula. Quebec refuses to sign the charter as they saw it as a type of assimilation. Trudeau moved forward without Quebec, the SCC said they could move forward as long as there was substantive provincial support. - Mulroney, agrees to have meetings with provincial powers at Meech lake. - Made sure francophone representation, allows provinces to opt out of co-provincial groups and pacts. Deadline of 3 years for each legislature to ratify. - Both Manitoba and Newfoundland refused to ratify their courts. - Manitoba failed because it didn't address indigenous issues, Newfoundland had an election and the new government wasn't interested in the court. - 55% Canadians voted against the Charlottetown Accord. English Canadians thought the Quebecers got too much Quebec thought they got too little. For Exam: Think are we a legitimate country? **Week 9: Charter of Rights and Freedoms** - Change to our constitutions it had 4 main effects, Canada had a constitutionally entrenched and codified bill of rights. Before, Parliament was supposed to protect those rights. - Parliamentary supremacy replaced by judicial and constitutional supremacy. - Once was a law was struck down both federal and provincial governments have to abide by them. - It increased democratic access. It can be challenged; citizens can now go to the courts to push for their interests. - They have negative liberty: the state must not interfere with their life. The state can't tell you what religion you have for example - They have Positive liberty: Is an entitlement the state must provide you. For example, education, and the right to have legal aid and access. - Negative rights are costless, whereas a positive right costs them. - Section 2 of Charter is mainly negative liberties. - Positive rights would be democracy rights such as the right to vote. Are Charter Rights Absolute? - No, these rights are not absolute, the charter allows for your rights to be infringed. Certain rights intersect. - For example, sometimes religion rights have to be infringed in order for women's rights to happen. - State can infringe on your rights as long as its "in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice" - Government uses the Oakes Test to determine rationality of law or limit. Right must be impaired as minimal as possible. Cost of impairing the right must be proportional to the benefits. Pattern (cont) - Section 33: Notwithstanding clause - Allows federal and provincial governments to exempt legislations from constitutional challenges within a five-year period. - Origins: 1960 Bill of Rights, section 33 came from this. - Believed in the British heritage of parliamentary supremacy, which is why section 33 allows the parliaments to be able to pass legislative bills. - The provinces wanted section 33; Trudeau didn't want it because it intersected with his plans. - Hegemonic preservation is connected with this. - Path dependency: people link section 33 to Quebec being angry on not being included, So people don't think this section is legitimate. - Section 33 prominent in balancing our rights and freedoms in our constitutions in relation to the legislation. Used to protected legislative bills. - Judges and citizens can use charter to force governments to alter and make laws. Calls this the charter revolution where parliamentary supremacy has been tossed aside. An example of this, is the Abortion laws. - Vriend (1998): court wrote sexual orientation into section 15 in the charter, courts wrote it into the charter not the parliament. - People use rules to push their political agenda and beliefs rather than strictly interpreting and following the law. Explanations: Attitudes - Looked at Newspapers commentary of ideology of judge. Positive scale is liberal and negative is Conservative. - What were the judicial decisions were made. Were the liberal or conservative? - Party affiliation of PM who appointed the judge. - Table 7 shows ideology scores with the +2 -2 scale. Supreme Court of Canada had a large range of conservative and liberal judges. Courts become biased based on periods. - Table 9 looks at the effects of different measures of ideologies on the likelihood that judges will make liberal or conservative decisions. 3 sets of cases, does ideology affect the decision. Judges are in fact driven by their ideology. Explanations: SSLM - Judicial activism was happening before charter. - Growing awareness across societies that people needed more civil rights to protect people after WW2 and the rising of the Cold War. - Started to push for and create organizations advocating for more legal, political, and human rights. - Enaction of Charter was a response from the pressure. - Government started to funding and give legal aid to these organizations. - First time legal aid programs are being built in Canada in 1966. - To become a lawyer you were an apprentice, after WW2 legal training moved towards university. Research in these universities was followed by public interests such as human rights. - Creates support structure for legal mobilization. - Emergence of government funding, law schools, and advocacy groups pushed for the charter. Explanations: Strategic Model - Judges considered public opinion, attitudes and laws; Courts want to be seen as legitimate. Makes the decisions based on how the public will react to it. - Supreme court is a main actor. - Utility maximization, chooses the one choice that maximizes their objectives. - Consistency. All citizens have preferences and we can rank order those preferences. Transitive and Intransitive preferences. - We usually operate in terms of expected utility. Decisions made on imperfect utility. What we think will happen. - Methodological individualism - Universalism. Everyone is the same it applies to everyone. Explanations: Game Theory - When we engage in politics we engage in games. - Payoffs things we expect to occur when we play specific strategies. - Depending on the rules of the game, certain strategies occur. - Graphs compare payoffs to strategies for players. Applying Model: - Use models to explain how courts behave differently. - Engages in legitimacy cultivation - In order for courts to be effective, they need to be legitimate. - Take the SC and legislators into the model. They can either defer (agrees with the law, creates a vacuum), nullify (strike down no longer enforced), or they can impose their own law. Legislators can respond by doing nothing (Courts ideal approach), create new legislation (status quo), or override SC using section 33 (status quo). - Supreme court chooses impose and legislature chooses defer= answer to model pt.2 - \*Read from the bottom up Evaluating Judicial Activism: - Charter revolution and judicial activism. Depends on whether its true if judges are replacing politicians. - Dialogue thesis, Parliament and SC are having a dialogue about what the constitution means. Court responds to parliament law by striking down law or not, they could design law in accordance to s.1 or s.33. - Some argue s.1 and 33 doesn't involve dialogue because there is no conversation between equals. - Argue it's a monologue where courts tell parliament what to do. - Some argue that parliament should be more active in constitutional interpretation. - Coordinate Interpretation, argues it should be equal. Parliament must respond by using minority retort meaning parliament has the option to revisit and challenge laws. - Parliament amends legislation to make it compatible to minority retort. Parliament can side with minority opinion. - Textual retort means siding with minority opinions and putting it into legislation. **Week 10: Canadian and Quebec Nationalism** Exam Info Part A: Take readings and apply it to the real world. Part B: A long essay based on the lecture material, reflect upon patterns, puzzle, and concepts Part C: (Might be bonus) Figure covered in class and say what it means **Nationalism-** when you have a strong feeling towards the national identity, it's your loyalty to the nation. **Nation-** total number of people who belong to the national identity - You can be part of the nation but have weak national identity. - Most people who live in Canada have citizenship and status. - Citizenship is a legal tool used to define who has the right to live and reap the benefits of Canada. Therefore, its different from nationalism. Citizenship means you've met the legal requirements for status. - Canada has a territory, boarders, and is internationally recognized as a state. - Citizenship means you have to follow the law; you have to but the needs of the state above all. - You can't just have citizenship to bond all together. You need national identity for loyalty to bind Canadians together. - **Nation:** an imagined community. It is socially constructed. - You create values, symbols, memories, and myths or traditions that compose a distinctive heritage of nations and identification of individuals. For example, public policies such as universal healthcare, flags, national colours, and national anthems. - Canada tried to develop a national identity as a homogenous nation, individual characteristics become secondary, British nature, economic agreements. Pattern: The Evolution of Canadian Nationalism - Study culture to understand national identity, look at music, literature, art - Survey people and ask them what does it mean to be Canadian - Draw on from philosophy to understand national identity. - Socially constructed by elites, imposed to create loyalty, story changes over time. It can be revised and challenged because its socially constructed. - Anglo-phone and Franco-phone, Pierre Trudeau states that what makes us Canadian is that everyone has the same rights and freedoms. - Speech of the Throne, reflect the values elites think bind us together for Canadians such as protect environment because what defines us is the geography of the state. - The story has changed over the years, because the original 1867 story ignored the diversity of Canada. Story changes based on the political elite's platform. 1. **Imperial Subject** - British connection - Canadian government decided that they are a subject of the British empire, they didn't have their own unique identity and they ignored their social construct of their country. - Government talked about building Canada as its own nation. Such as building banks, machinery, railroads, etc. - Praised and talked about their connection to the British empire and sovereignty. - What binded Canadians all together was the love and loyalty to Britain. - It didn't talk about Indigenous peoples and French identity. - Indigenous peoples were seen as a group that needed to be assimilated into British culture. - Identity started to change when political elites realised that this causes conflicts between groups. End of WW1, politicians started to talk less about British loyalty and more about building Canadian identity and sovereignty. - Critical juncture between WW1 and WW2. - 1920s started to bring great economic powers, 1930s brought economic risks and challenges, and atrocities of WW1 and WW2, shifted Canadian nationalism. 2. **Caring-Sharing Canadian or "Social Citizenship"** - We are interested of looking after the most helpless sand needy people in society. - This created the **welfare state:** programs designed to help families, mothers, veterans, the blind and disabled, adoption of new flag, Canada Council for the Arts, national anthem, CBC, human rights and freedoms, social services, bilingual nature of Canada. 3. **The Entrepreneurial Canadian** - Economic system in the world started to change in the 70s - Huge government deficits, high unemployment rates, and high waves of inflation. - Government did not have all the resources needed to provide for the welfare state. - State shouldn't be the sole provider of care - Canadians need to be more self-reliant and sacrificial. Canadian government doesn't help everyone only the ones who are most vulnerable and needy. - Neo-liberalism, we need to think about the global economy, so states need to do less and individuals need to be innovative and do more themselves. - It didn't recognize the diversity of Canadians 4. **The Middle Way?** - The economic downturn in the 90s and 2000s, meant that the entrepreneurial way isn't working. They tried to find a middle ground between neoliberalism and sharing-caring government. - Markets and states are both important - There have been cultural and economic shifts. **Partisan Influence?** - Liberals mention healthcare 23 times on average compared to 6.58 times for Conservative. **(Table 2)** - Liberal governments tend to talk about minority diversity. - Conservatives tend to talk about war, military, threat and security, and economics **Quebec Nationalism** - Multinationalism, recognized by Will Kymlicka 1. Settler state 2. Multination State 3. Polyethnic state, we accept a large number of immigrants and we expect them to integrate and assimilate into our society - Much of our political history and conflicts have been a tension between homogenous and diverse national identities. John Ralston Saul: Metis Political Culture - English and French Canada, most of our history surrounds those two nations competing and then learning to live together - Catholic vs. Protestant - Less of a culture and more attaching French identity to Quebec provincial state that was distinct from the rest of Canada. - Linguistically French is the dominant language in Quebec, Arts and culture Quebec have different and distinct culture separate from the rest of Canada such a musicians and tv. - Legal system in Quebec is civil law compared to common law in Canada. - Politics in Quebec is more activist and caters towards unions. Stage 1: Cultural Nationalism - Feudal, Catholic, Hierarchical, Social classes, Deference, French - Canadians or Habitants - Seven Years War, Quebec Act of 1774, BNA Act of 1867 - Didn't want British English Canadians to control them Step 2: Quebec State Nationalism - 1960s was a quiet and ideological evolution in Quebec - Lots of changes in industrialization and urbanization, increased dramatically after WW2. Quebec abandoned living in the countryside and farming to industrial living. - Want to modernize Quebec, take control of the assets of Quebec from the British empire. - Privatize all energy in Quebec, reformed healthcare and education policy. Quebec state nationalism steered away from religious ideologies with state and reformed. - Trudeau created charter to create new symbol of nationality. Quebec elites weren't happy about it and pushed away many ideas similar. Quebec Economic Nationalism - Non-constitutional appeasement - More control within and outside Quebec - A stable Quebec is one the is economically viable - Turned to parties that promised economic stability - Quebec people voted for the coalition Avenir, opposed to multiculturalism, suspicious of the charter. Identity politics disappears, it comes from economic inequality. If you eliminate economic inequality many political conflicts disappear. Fundamentally people want to have a good life and money is a big part of it. **Week 11: Canadian Identity and Nationalism; Indigenous Peoples** - Story in Canada was told that the country was built by English and French settlers. Socially constructed by Elites, ignores the Indigenous peoples. - Indigenous peoples had politically and economically advance societies, they did trade and settlers often borrowed similar systems. - Land ownership, settlers would ignore that they owned land. They lived on the land, farmed and fished on the lands, built homes, and if you would trespass the land there was consequences. - They see land as something that is mutually beneficial, relationship is non-hierarchical. Opposite of Western society. - Indigenous groups were divided differently, some communities were based on families, chiefs who had responsibilities such as War chiefs. Iroquois earliest confederations in the world we borrowed systems from, they had a matrilineal system were women had ultimate power. - There was no poor or rich, wealth was evenly distributed. Indigenous communities' goal was to make sure everyone was taken care of. Their health was better compared to European citizens. - Europeans encountered the harsh climate of North America and Indigenous peoples helped them survive those times. The was a mutual respect between nations. - They signed many treaties for trading and protecting each other. It was about military alliance and economic trade. - Relationship turned into paternalistic and colonialist. - **Royal Proclamation of 1763**- said no British subject could acquire Indigenous lands unless the Crown acquires it first. Set in place to protect people from taking Indigenous lands. Treaties turned exploitative to take their lands. - In exchange they got a small chunk of their land called reserves. **Indigenous Peoples in Canada** - Indigenous communities as "superpowers" - Shift in power relations as settler population increase relations become paternalistic. - 1876 Indian Act, governs all aspect of Indigenous life, establishes membership rules, imposes property rights, the ban important cultural practices such as the potlach. Send children in residential schools. - Reserves were supposed to be temporary and overtime they would assimilate and integrate into Canada. - Indigenous people became subjected and controlled over the federal government (the Crown) - Cultural genocide---Canada sought to destroy Indigenous culture and force them to assimilate into Western culture. - Every few years they would elect Band councillors that were similar to mayorship. Forcing them into democracy political systems. - Created Indigenous elites that serve the Canadian political system that further undermines indigenous communities and identity. - Can give property rights to band members that give them the right to build and own a house. There some restrictions, only band members can have Certificate of Possession, they need the governments approval to transfer their land, you can't use it to get a mortgage. - Did not recognize that the Indigenous identity was strong, recognized, and ancient. **Indigenous Peoples today** - Make up 5% of the population vs 2016 4.9% of the population - Most of them live in the North with some in Southern Canada. - At first, they were called Indians, but they are now recognized as First Nations, Metis, Inuit. - Lots of academics or artists claim indignity but are under investigation or suspicious of not being Indigenous. Called Pretendians. - Health and well-being levels for them tend to be lower, they are usually in lower-income housing and classes. **Explanations** 1. **Assimilation** - Expectation that all members of society should be the same. - Reason to why they are less well-off today is because Canadians did not assimilate far enough. Argues if we treated them the same as any other immigrant, they would assimilate into society better. - Instead, they signed treaties where they got gifts and some land (reserves). - Indigenous peoples could voluntarily renounce the Indigenous status in result, they got land. - Solution is to have full out Canadian citizenship. - Today, scholars say the opposite, they say that assimilation is the reason as to why this happened it wouldn't have been better if they would've done that harder. - They argue, its unjust. Assimilation violates the historical and contemporary relationships with them. They are different from immigrants because they were here first. - In 1969, Pierre Trudeau revisited the assimilation strategy they came up with the White Paper, they were going to dismantle indigenous status and affairs. They were going to treat them as every other Canadian. 2. **Citizen Plus** - They are marginalized today because of colonialism and assimilation. - Argues we need to decolonize Canada. - Modern position written by Alan Cairns, he said that the way we should think about Indigenous people is that they are citizen plus. They share common citizenship and rights but they should have special rights to recognize their uniqueness to their existence in Canada. 3. **Nation to Nation** - The federal government commissioned the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. They commission reports form academics on the state of indigenous communities and solutions to their problems. - Two Row Wampum: Two separate canoes traveling down the same river in the same direction side by side- idea is to help each other, the idea of nation to nation. - We should recognize Aboriginal governments (federal, provincial, and Aboriginal) - Have their own rights to land, fishing, hunting, government. - Dismantle Indian Affairs - Provide massive amounts of funding to address the social needs of Indigenous communities. - Government did not want to implement these things because it's too much money and work (Path Dependent). 4. **Indigenous Resurgence** - Reject the State - Indigenous communities cannot turn to the state to solve their issues. For example, Band Councils as it further exploited them to the State. - Need to relearn languages, cultural practices, etc. Then they can go to the court and engage in negotiations. - Dominate perspective in academia today. - Citizenship should be promoted by adding or strengthen citizenship in education, providing citizenship classes to immigrants, and imposing new citizenship tests for naturalization and holding ceremonies. - Many anxieties surrounding the perceived lack of integration for immigrants. - Alternative to multiculturalism. - Some critics argue this idea of citizenship rules panders xenophobic sentiments and reproduces ideological assumptions about the essential national homogeneity of existing citizens and of the alien otherness of newcomers. - In multination states, like Canada, older ideas of homogenous national citizenship have already been contested and transformed as a result of mobilization by historic regional minorities, resulting in models of what can be called multinational citizenship. - New agendas should promote a distinctly multinational conception of citizenship so that it is fair and effective. - Many immigrants end up identifying as the country they reside in as their citizenship just as much as native born citizens. - It is with national minorities, not immigrants, that there is organized political movements and political parties contesting the legitimacy of the state. - Citizenship coincides with the idea of "commitment to" and "identifying with" - Without the unit of self-determination, democracy becomes unstable. - It is important to identify ways of accommodating minority nationalism that are consistent with democratic stability. - One model is called "multination federalism", it has two key features; (1) it involves creating a federal or quasi-federal sub-unit in which the minority group forms a local majority, and thereby exercise meaningful forms of self-government. (2) where the minority has a distinct language, typically recognized as an official state language within their sub-unit, if not state-wide. - Historic relations of animosity between states and national minorities has been replaced with relations of democratic citizenship. 1. Peace and Individual security: almost complete absence of violence or terrorism by either state or minority. 2. Democracy: Operates under normal democratic procedures with no military or authoritarian threats 3. Individual Freedom: Since sub-states are subject to the same constitutional constraints as the central government, they have no capacity to restrict their individual freedoms. 4. Inter-group equality: Promotes equality between majority and minority national groups. Creates greater economic equality, greater equality of political participation, and greater equality of cultural respect and recognition. - Due to Canada's multicultural system and emphasis on ethnic politics, I think it is important to design its constitution based off of respect for diversity, Indigenous sovereignty, equality, and democracy. - Codifying the UNDRIP into its constitution, upholding the principles of the Truth and reconciliation commission. - Introducing preferential voting similar to Belgium and Australia, allowing minority groups to be represented and creating a middle-ground for the majority votes. - Guarantee access to education, housing, and healthcare as fundamental rights in the charter. - Allow provinces to have more say in federal policymaking---joint leadership. And include all provinces not just Ontario. 1. How does federalism affect institutional clarity and citizens ability to hold governments accountable? Different levels of governments will blame federal governments for certain policies are out of their jurisdictions Federalism holds all levels of governments accountable and limits confusions for voters 2. It can affect coordination and organizations of governments as there many overlaps and confusion on whose jurisdiction is what. Citizens will have a harder time holding certain governments or authorities accountable. Can lead to unevenly distributed resources. 3. Focuses on overlap and coordination challenges. Jurisdictional ambiguity. Confusion on accountability. To solve this issue, you would have to have clearly defined levels of governments allocated to certain issues you would have to pre organize this so that there is no confusion on accountability. You would also have to evenly distribute finances and resources so that they are all equal. **Ch. 8 Federalism** - Constitution act 1867 indicates that the Dominion of Canada is to have a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom. - Canada adopted the British tradition of Responsible Government and also adopted the American tradition of federalism or federal union. - Constitution sets out the areas of jurisdiction for the provincial or state governments. - It requires a neutral umpire to adjudicate this division of powers and hence requires the practice of constitutional judicial review. **What is Federalism?** - **Unitary system** of government is one in which all sovereign authority of that nation-state resides in one governing body---that is the national government. The national government delegates some of its authority to lower levels of government like cities and towns. All other governments are subordinate. - Examples are **Leagues and alliances** or what is called today, confederacies. Early existence of these governmental groups came from the Ancient Greeks and First Nations. - In **a federal system** of government, authority is constitutionally divided between two levels of government, each level receives its authority from the country's constitution and is therefore subordinate to it. - The constitution gives legal jurisdiction over matters of national concern to the national legislature and gives legal jurisdiction to local matters to the provincial legislatures. - In a **unitary system**, authority flows from the center out, in a **federal system**, authority is constitutionally divided between central and provincial governments. In a **confederacy/alliance**, authority flows from the individual members to the center. - Canada refers to their national government as a federal union. - Municipal governments fall within the jurisdiction of the provincial government, and are therefore subordinates of them. Provincial government are subordinates of the federal government. - Both federal and provincial are equally subordinate to the constitution. **Why the Federal Union?** - British North America consisted of 6 colonies: British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI, Newfoundland, and the Province of Canada (upper and lower Canada). - Vast lands largely inhabited by Indigenous peoples under the control of the Hudson's Bay Company. - Each of the 6 colonies had its own colonial government and legislature. - Divisions of power existed between British and French which made it unworkable. - Politicians were desperate to reform the system of government. - Scheme was to unite the British colonies within North America under one government. This idea was appealing to three of the colonies. - Tilted the division of power for the province of Canda in favour of the English-speaking colonists. - The new government for the Dominion of Canada could provide for a coordinated plan of economic development of railways, canals, and roads. And it could provide greater security for both small colonies---which were concerned about American imperial designs on them, and the uncolonized parts of North America and also security for the uncolonized parts. - The new government would help relieve the burden on Britain of providing troops and personnel to administer the colonies. British believed it was time for Canada to stand alone. - English-speaking Canadians were in favour of a "legislative union" (unitary system). This was not a realistic political option. - The French-speaking Canadians in Lower Canada would never have agreed to a unitary system in which they would be a minority. - Maritimes colonies were not in favour of a legislative union mainly because they were the oldest colony and had a long-established government and didn't want to become the minority. Split Between English and French and Arguments on Federalism: - Division between the center and periphery. - Solution between these divisions is the creation of a federal union. - Canadians were reluctant to organize the government on the federal principle. - Federalism was perceived to have failed in the US as they just emerged from one of the worst civil wars in history. - Federalism created a divided system of government and that the weakness of the national government in Washington was one of the main causes of war. - Second objection to federalism is that it would create two levels of government and hence be more costly than unitary government. It would also be hard to afford one level of government, let alone two. Argued it would be weaker. - It also would create divided loyalties. The Original Design of the Federal Union: - Federal arrangements and creation were met at the Quebec Conference of 1864. - John A. MacDonald argued that the founders of confederation had given "all the great subjects of legislation" to the federal parliament. - Section 91: Establishes the exclusive legislative jurisdictions of the federal government. - Section 92: Establishes those of the provinces. - Both Section 91 and 92 give Ottawa more jurisdiction and power such as powers over trade, commerce, finances, and criminal law - Powers of provincial governments are less substantial. They have jurisdiction over local or private natures such as hospitals, charities, and property/civil rights. - Provinces raise money through **"Direct Taxation",** which didn't become relevant until modern times were things like income tax came into place. - Concurrent jurisdictions in section 95 was at the hands of agriculture and immigration. - Representative of the Crown is to be appointed by Ottawa. - Ottawa is granted the power of disallowance, means the federal government can annul provincial legislation of which it disapproves. - The **powers of reservation** and disallowance makes the provincial level subordinate to the federal. - Argued that the Canadian constitution produces a **quasi-federal system.** **The historical development of federalism in Canada** - Canada now has a decentralized federal union. - This is because some jurisdictions that were unimportant at the time became very important such as the healthcare system. It is one of the largest areas of public expenditure. - Provincial taxes became more relevant. - There are a number of decentralized forces that leads to public favour a greater role for provincial governments. **Week 12: Does Federalism Prevent Democratic Accountability? John Kennedy** - Federalism can complicate democracy by reducing institutional clarity. - Multiple governments within a country can obscure policy goals, financial responsibility, etc. - Makes it hard for citizens to hold governments accountable because they don't know what level has jurisdiction for what. - Article links citizens thoughts and issues with federalism to the province's implementation of COVID-19 tests administered. - Citizens are both aware and interested enough to meet the standards of accountability that underpin democracy. - Citizen demands can heighten when group-serving biases are activated or when certain issues are important, due to media. - The costs of acquiring the necessary information needed to assign responsibility are much lower relative to the benefits. - Canadians are confused on who does what because federal welfare preferences are driven in part by provincial policymaking and not just federal spending. - Media, inter-governmental and inter-party conflict must make known what level of government is responsible for what. - Voters must be aware that a policy actions emanates from only one level of government. - COVID-19 generated high issue significance, high levels of media coverage, and low levels of intergovernmental/interparty conflicts, across provinces. - Policy activity varied across provinces. - Citizens are highly motivated to hold governments accountable for preventing/failing to prevent the rapid spread of COVID-19. - Citizen satisfaction= levels of testing - Data results= no statistically significant relationship between satisfaction and higher percentages of individual testing. - Data suggests that respondents are unable to assign responsibility to the correct level of government during COVID. - The pandemic has created an information rich environment that should enhance the capacity to correctly allocate responsibility for policy action. - Federal systems are complex in the way they split up jurisdiction, finances, asset ownership, etc. **Week 12: Canadian Federalism, Multilevel politics, Occupation of Ottawa. Sabin** - Article talks about the Freedom convoy protests - It was organized around wide-ranging demands from ending COVID-19 restrictions to over-throwing the federal government. - The inability of Ottawa's municipal police to end the protest was a failure of local policing and national security policy. - Federal government decided to invoke the Emergencies Act---Legislative successor of war measures act to stop protests, this was invoked when the Convoy blocked the US boarder in Windsor. - Why was it the Federal governments job to end protests regarding provincial jurisdiction and municipal authorities? - Furthermore, why was the Ottawa police tasked with a national security matter? - Ottawa-Gatineau host most of Canda's federal institutions and public civil servants. - Federal government have very little control over that region. - Outside federally owned lands, federal government have no policy or administrative oversight on land-use planning, transportation, health and social services, policing and security and economic development. - Ottawa-Gatineau have very little coordination between provincial and municipal governments. - There are multiple police services in Ottawa, including: 1. Ottawa Police Service (OPS)---municipal 2. Ontario Provincial Police (OPP)---Provincial 3. Royal Canadian Mount Police (RCMP)---Federal 4. Parliament Protective Services (PPS)---Federal - The OPS is responsible for the primary safety and security of Ottawa regions. It is funded through municipal taxes and some provincial transfers. - PPS is situational rather than geographical, it protects any building where parliamentary business occurs. - RCMP oversees grounds of Parliament and designated Canadians, governor general or PM - OPS has jurisdiction over streets and municipal infrastructure and criminal investigations on Parliament Hill. - Policing reforms surrounding Parliament Hill followed after the 2014 shooting on Parliament Hill. Solutions were to reduce precincts to 3 instead of 4 and to place the RCMP's on the hill. - Nations Capital Extraordinary Policing Costs Program gives Ottawa \$2 million for extra police services at protests, foreign visits, and Canada Day. - Reported that \$36.5 million municipal taxpayer dollars was used for this program. - Under the CA of 1867 Section 92 states that provinces job to admin justice and policing and give some authority to municipalities like public order, law enforcement, and crime prevention. - The OPP failed Ottawa, the province only sent 135-200 officers and declared an emergency act 2 weeks after the event. - Ford had constitutional responsibility to act not a political one. - Ford was unscathed because a mismatch of responsibility of government. - Solution: Extend federal jurisdiction to policing in Ottawa. - Act is to help Conservatives win 2023 election - 3 challenges for winning caucus: 1. Settle a fractious caucus led by a premier no more popular than her predecessor. 2. Distract Caucus from this unpopularity 3. Fashion a ballot question that help it defeat with the NDP's that have gained popular vote in Alberta. - Polls suggest the Sovereignty act is not popular in Alberta - Hope is that the conflict with the federal Liberal government drives politics onto the western alienation dimension of Alberta politics. - UCP caucus had little time to smooth out internal differences before the pandemic hit. - Only 51.4% of voting party members indicated Kennedy's premier leadership, therefore Kennedy immediately announced his resignation as leader. - Kennedy was criticized for their support for vaccines, masks, and covid restrictions but did little to no movement on enforcing stricter lockdown measures. - Danielle Smith then overtook the UCP (conservative) leadership. - A good deal of policy dissent within the UCP---which means lots of disagreements. - The issue that generated cohesion was the proposal to hold a referendum on a more equitable federal equalization arrangement. - Smith had no direct history with the UCP and enjoyed limited support from within the caucus, most other leadership candidates strongly voting against her and her sovereignty strategy. - Remade the party attracting new members with little or no history of party politics who were not representative of provincial voters. - Pandemic was bad for Kennedys leadership, his approval rating dropped from 61% to 31%. - Smith is also unpopular; polls suggest that less than 30% of voters think her arrival would be good for Alberta. - Powerful theme that runs Alberta's politics is the feeling of alienation within the federation---particularly Ottawa. - Another is populism to keep smith running. - Federations are designed to be fractious, unwilling to accept the constraints of the constitution. - Quebec rails against Ottawa to protect its cultural distinctiveness. Alberta rails against Ottawa because its growth across the 20^th^ century, its provincial society and economy has grown faster than any other since 1950. It produces nearly all of Canada's most valuable export like oil and gas. - Alberta joining the liberal coalition will leave them with no bargaining power. **Week 13: Regions, Regionalism, and Regional Differences (Cochcrane)** - Individuals belong to regions simultaneously. - Regionalism should be conceptualized as a social psychological concept. People and characteristics towards institutions. - Regional differences likely caused from different causes and levels of analysis. - Regional differences in voting behaviour, political culture, ideology, economic performance, policy preferences, and public opinion.\ Definition of Region: Formal boundaries of provinces as the fault lines of regional political tectonics. - Canada has governments that provides a center. - Treat each province as a region, except for Quebec as it splits it province based on English and French speaking regions. - Schwartz's five regions: Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies, and BC. - Many reject the use of provinces as a regional proxy. - 2 Transprovincial region: Atlantic Canada and Prairies. - 3 Provincial regions: Quebec, Ontario, BC, - Some treat BC as a part of the Prairies and call them the "West" - Regional cuts within territories can include federal electorate districts. - Composition Effect: emerges when regions differ from one another on dependent variable of interest because there's different proportions of particular groups. - Context Effect: Emerges when a characteristic of a region shapes the opinion of individuals within that region. Behaviour surrounds a population. - Characteristics of a region occurs depending on their natural resources, trade routes, and proximity to key markets=economic development. - Political culture: Different immigrant groups with different cultural backgrounds arrived at different times in different regions. - People often use their local environments as their source of information about the world. - People are "Loco-tropic". Week 13: Understanding Alienation in Western Canada: Is Western Alienation the Problem? Is Senate Reform the Cure? (Lawson) - Western alienation is an exceptional type of regional alienation and is more salient for many Western Canadians than any types of alienation. - It fails to acknowledge the wide variation and complexity of regional alienation within the West and the marginalization of political alienation. - "Political alienation" is rooted in the discontent with political representatives, institutions, decisions, etc. - Western alienation is exacerbated by the historical and contemporary relationship of mistreatment experienced by Western Canada as a region vis-à-vis the federal government, regional interests of central Canada (Ontario and Quebec), at the expense of the West. - The Riel Rebellion of 1870 over control of natural resources in Manitoba, the Progressive Conservatives resistance to federal tariffs and freight rates in the 1920s, Social Credit's opposition to a financial system imposed by eastern banks that crippled farmers during the depression, the enforcement of official bilingualism and biculturalism in the 60s, the imposition of the National Energy Program by Trudeau and the Liberal governments mistreatment of the west. Week 2 Readings Mobilizing the Young the Role of Social networks - Young people are often absent from political discussion and activities. - In the 2008 American Presidential election and the 2015 Canadian federal election young people were mobilized. - Turnout rate for 18--24-year-olds was at its highest for Obama and Trudeau. - Howe suggests political inattentiveness, less social integration and stronger peer influence increases political indifference. - Turnout decline is caused by generational differences, lifestyles effects, life personal circumstances and major events. - Social environments have an impact on political attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours. - Primary mechanism is discussion - "Spiral of silence" interpretation of public opinion. If someone's opinions aren't in line with the majority of population, they are less likely to engage due to perceived lack of social support or fear of isolation. - Political knowledge has more of a dramatic positive effect on turnout rates in young people. - Political diversity increases political activity in youth. - Studies effects of discussion, and disagreement on engagement with youth interactions. Malcolmson Ch.6: Elections - Canada is a representative democracy; central regime is elections. - Members of Parliament are directly accountable to us as they must be re-elected to stay in office. - Prime Minister and Cabinet are indirectly accountable to us as they must maintain the confidence of the House of Commons, which we elect directly. 3 Main Concepts of Representation: 1. Elected representatives are seen as delegates who transmit the view of the majority that elected. 2. Treat representatives as trustees, they're entrusted with the responsibilities. 3. Representative is a party member. They're loyal supporters of their parties' policies. - Representation must be party representation to keep the link between the cabinet and voter. - **"Democratic Mandate",** is when it's assumed that voters elected a MP based on the party affiliations and their policies become mandate. - **"Floor Crossing",** when a representative decides to represent a different party. - Floor-Crossing violates the idea of delegates and party members but can be in favour of trustees. - **Microcosm Theory of Representation:** Legislative bodies are only fully representative if it's a microcosm of society as a whole. For example, if half the population is female, then half the representatives should be female. - Microcosm theory has 2 Arguments: 1. Inclusivity as a requirement of fairness. 2. Legislative needs to be inclusive as all perspectives are heard. - **Design of Electoral System Depends on Factors:** 1. How will the electoral districts be divided? 2. Number of representatives. If there are too few representatives, the body wont sufficiently represents the population. 3. Questions on the method of electing representatives. Does the person with the most votes (Plurality) win? - Canda adopted an electoral system similar to Britain with some similarities with American federalism. - **Single-member plurality system:** Electoral system which the country is divided in geographically distinct electoral districts. Electoral districts are informally called ridings or constituencies. - The winning candidate is the one with the most votes. - Electoral boundaries commissions: Process for determining specific boundaries of electoral districts. They're run by a judge and 2 impartial citizens. They must consider the principle of community interest. - A province's electoral district should equal their population. This is called Electoral Quotient. - The House commons have the ability to force an election if the party is called on the grounds of "lack of confidence in the government". Usually compels Prime Minister to resign or dissolve Parliament. - Once governor general dissolves Parliament, a general election follows (nation-wide). - By-election: A single election to fill a seat left vacated. - Election campaign must be a minimum of 6 days. - General elections are administered by chief electoral officer, who appoints a returning officer for all districts. - Polls: Electoral districts divided into smaller unions. - Returning Officer Appoints: 1. Poll clerks 2. Deputy Returning Officer 3. 2 Enumerators (They prepare the voters list) **Candidates Must:** 1. Put their name onto ballot 2. Present official nomination papers signed by 1000 electoral voters from the riding 3. Deposit \$1000 - Electoral laws place limits on how much money can be spent on a campaign. - Scrutineers: At the poll to observe the process - Votes are counted by the deputy returning officer. Vote ballots are sealed and sent to returning officer. - Public-Opinion Polling is a good way to keep citizens informed during election process and promotes voting through mass marketing. 1. It replaces the MPs role as delegates. 2. It allows for conforming by promoting what's "good" because it's the majority. Single-Member Plurality System (SMP): Divides our voting into 228 elections. - Divided among provinces, SMP awards seats in the House only to those who come first in each electoral district. - Causes a discrepancy between party votes and its shares of seats, - Proportional Representation (PR), used in many European Liberal democracies. Includes the party list system. - Party List System: Each party prepares a list if its candidates in ranked order. Electoral districts would be abolished. - Advocates argue that PR is more fair because seat proportions mirror total vote distributions. - Mixed-Member Proportional System (MMP): Blends party list from SMP and PR. New Zealand has this system. Voting Behaviour in Canada: The State of Discipline, Gidengil - Elections are fundamental to our system of representative democracy. - Longer-term factors on voter behaviour is social background characteristics and ideological orientations which often influence short-term factors such as issue attitudes and leader evaluation. - Alfords conclusion that Canada was a case of "purse non-class politics". - This could be attributed to the lack of class consciousness, through the formation of the Canadian working class, the electoral system, the nature of unions, and lack of a "true" class party. - Voters in different parts of the country differ in how they weigh considerations, often social backgrounds like culture and religion weigh more of a difference in voter behaviour than regionalism. - Rural and urban areas are divided in how the vote. Liberals often have urban advantage over the conservativeness of rural areas. - Propensity of Catholics to vote Liberals has been observed often in Canadian politics. - Irvine suggests that parents pass on their religious affiliations and their partisanship, even in the absence of any conscious connection between the two. - It is not a matter of Catholics preferring a party led by a Catholic nor is it about the party's issue preferences. - During political reforms in the 90s Canadian politics started to see a shift in moralism affecting voting, similar to the US. - Research shows that neither social background and ideological considerations influenced racialized Canadians to prefer Liberals.