Ontario's Place in Canada: A Political Overview PDF

2 ONTARIO’S PLACE WITHIN CANADA Topic 2 – 10 September 2024  What is Ontario? One of the editors of the textbook, Jonathan Malloy, describes Ontario as: Big and diverse. Ontario’s share of the Canadian population – about 38% - is much larger than any American s...

2 ONTARIO’S PLACE WITHIN CANADA Topic 2 – 10 September 2024  What is Ontario? One of the editors of the textbook, Jonathan Malloy, describes Ontario as: Big and diverse. Ontario’s share of the Canadian population – about 38% - is much larger than any American state, e.g. California or New York within the US, so its influence within Canada is much greater Toronto is the largest city in Canada and is seen by some Torontonians as the centre of the universe; smaller cities play a subordinate role. - Ontario often seen as the same as Canada, i.e. not distinct within the federation. Historically, Upper Canada became a colony of the British Empire as a result of the Seven Years War - actually in 1759, legally with the Treaty of Paris in 1763. - Upper Canada was formally constituted in 1791, as distinct from Lower Canada – Quebec. Ontario as part of the British Empire 1763 to 1931  What is Ontario? Ontario, along with the rest of Canada, remained part of the British Empire until well into the 20th century. Now Canada is part of the British Commonwealth. Legally, this changed with the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Economically and financially, this was a gradual process which reached its peak between World War I and World War II as British influence waned and American influence became even more dominant. Ontario developed its own “colonies” in western and Atlantic Canada during the 19th century.  What is Ontario? British or Loyalist traditions still appear in the form of - the Union Jack on the flag of Ontario - the Crown on automobile licence plates - Queen’s Park and - the provincial motto: Ut incipit sic permanent fidelis – “As it began, so it remains faithful”…to the British Crown Also manifested in colonial symbolism: Upper Canada College; the Law Society of Upper Canada, Upper Canada Village, Upper Canada Mall, Upper Canada School District Ontario as Part of Canada, 1867 to 1964  What is Ontario? Ontario culture was dominated by Protestant Christians originally from the British isles, i.e. English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh – Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists. Settlers from Britain were helped by Indigenous peoples on several occasions to repel invasions from the US. British Protestants were supplemented by Irish Catholics fleeing the potato famine in their homeland in the 1840s and 1850s. Flag of Canada Until 1964 Flag of Ontario since 1965  What is Ontario?  Ontario is not a uniform entity, it has many regions.  Northern Ontario is almost like a different province and varies significantly between northwestern Ontario and northeastern Ontario. - Large numbers of Indigenous peoples live in the North. - Large numbers of Francophones live in northeastern Ontario.  The Greater Toronto Area – GTA – dominates southern Ontario and includes the provincial capital - Toronto.  The nation’s capital – Ottawa – and the rest of eastern Ontario form another distinct region.  What is Ontario?  Other population centres like Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo, London and Windsor dominate southwestern Ontario. Ontario is culturally diverse, but much of that diversity is concentrated in the GTA, especially the City of Toronto. - According to the 2021 census, 56 per cent of people living in Toronto are non-white racialized - Less than one third of those living outside of Toronto are considered racialized. Political Culture  Political Culture in New Societies like Canada “Political culture refers to deeply rooted, popularly held beliefs, values, and attitudes about politics. Culture is pervasive, patterned, cross-generational, enduring, and relatively stable.” (Nelson Wiseman) Political culture results from the enduring values that guide political expectations and norms. Political culture has cognitive, affective and evaluational elements. A nation’s political culture includes its citizens’ orientations at three levels: the political system, the political and policymaking process, and policy outputs and outcomes.  Political Culture’s Impact on Politics The “operative” elements of political culture are usually unarticulated assumptions, expectations and understandings – norms people quietly hold of how they expect government to operate The operational elements of political culture of Ontario include the Speech from the Throne, annual budgets, political party conventions The policy activities of a jurisdiction are influenced by public images of what constitutes the good society and the role of government in achieving those goals Programmatic content of political culture; e.g. universal public medicare, Equalization payments to less affluent provinces  Approaches to the Study of Political Culture Ontario’s political culture can be contrasted with American political culture Researchers have found that, in comparing Canadians and Americans: - religion is a weaker value for Canadians - collectivism is stronger and individualism is weaker in Canada - particularism, diversity and tolerance are stronger in Canada; e.g. multiculturalism - deference to authority is stronger in Canada - egalitarianism stronger in Canada  Political Development Approach to Political Culture – Fragment Theory Louis Hartz talked about “ideological fragmentation” and argued that the political culture of “new societies” reflected that of old-world societies, or at least a narrow slice of that old society’s ideological spectrum Hartz defined each society in terms of its dominant feudal, liberal or socialist ideology Hartz’s approach was applied to the United States, English Canada, French Canada, Latin America, Australia and South Africa  Hartz’s Fragment Theory Classifies each ideological tradition according to certain characteristics: Traditional conservatism or toryism talks about tradition, authority or order, hierarchy, priority of community, cooperation and stresses traditional institutions - more common in the 19th and early 20th centuries Classical liberalism talks about reason, freedom, equality of opportunity, individualism, competition Socialism talks about reason, freedom from want, equality of condition, priority of community, and cooperation  Fragment Theory Dialectical relationship between the three ideologies: - traditional feudal or conservative ideology was challenged by liberalism’s belief in individual reason, logic, enlightenment, science and technology - socialism arose in response to both conservative and liberal ideologies and stresses equality of economic condition, the importance of social classes and the need for cooperation  Fragment Theory in Canada In French Canada, traditional francophone society was defined as feudal, a fragment of pre-revolutionary French society In English Canada, scholars have been divided over the role of ideology in Hartz’s interpretation of Canadian political culture Kenneth D. McRae saw English Canadian political culture as a smaller version of the liberal political culture dominant in the United States Gad Horowitz saw the United Empire Loyalists (UEL) as combining American liberalism with the conservatism and collectivism (i.e. feudal) components of British political culture  Formative Events Theory Seymour Martin Lipset compared Canada with the United States and explained their opposing reactions to a major formative event, the American revolution - American revolutionary liberalism versus Canada’s UEL counter- revolutionaries Lipset concluded that Canada was more elitist and less egalitarian, stressed ascription rather than achievement, more deferential, more hierarchical and particularistic, i.e. treating people as members of a group  Formative Events Theory Lipset concluded that “Canadians are more elitist, law-abiding, statist, collectively oriented and group oriented than Americans.” Canadians are more likely to: - stress the importance of hierarchical organizations (e.g. governments) - have lower crime rates - have stronger labour unions - have greater corporate concentration and oligopolies - create more public enterprises - be less cynical about governments - vote - be less likely to be involved in protest demonstrations  Ontario’s Formative Events Several significant historical events have left a lasting impression on Canadian society Major events have included: - American revolution in the 18th century and UEL refugees produced two new nations, the USA and Canada - War of 1812-14 with Americans - Rebellion of 1837 and responsible government in 1848 in Ontario - Riel rebellions and settlement of the West  Formative Events Canadian Provinces Nelson Wiseman has identified different formative events for each of the provinces: - Responsible government in 1855 in Newfoundland - Acadian expulsion in 1755 in the Maritimes - Conquest of 1759 in Quebec - American revolution in 1780s in Ontario - Louis Riel and the CPR in Manitoba in 1870s - Louis Riel and the CPR in Saskatchewan in 1880s - Settlement of Alberta in 1890s - CPR and Panama Canal opening in BC  Formative Events in Ontario Wiseman describes Ontario as the US’s Counter Revolution A by-product and in opposition to the American Revolution, Ontario has always been connected to the US in positive and negative ways The United Empire Loyalists (UEL) were one of the first groups of refugees to come to Canada and Ontario from the US Wiseman also points out that, compared to today, Ontario’s UEL refugee “settlers arrived with Black slaves, women lacked property and civil rights, and [Indigenous people] – who outnumbered whites everywhere in the colony – were deemed outcasts beyond the pale of civilization.”  Impact of Waves of Immigration Waves of immigration into Canada: - UEL expelled by American revolution in 18th century – Maritime provinces together received 35,000 refugees, 10,000 refugees settled in Quebec and Ontario - UEL held traditional Tory attitudes toward society and politics; e.g. Family Compact - British immigrants during the first half of the 19th century increased the population and included English, Scottish and Irish - those British immigrants established responsible government and major structures of society along liberal, reformist lines  Impact of Waves of Immigration - Early 20th century immigration included Central and Eastern Europeans settling on the prairies and working-class British immigrants settling in Ontario cities - Followed by European immigrants (e.g. Italians, Portuguese) throughout the 20th century, but especially after World War II, settled in cities in Ontario - More recent immigrants from Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America also largely settled in Ontario cities  Ontario’s Political Culture Conclusion: Ontario’s political culture prefers order, stability, and continuity. It includes cultural values described as ascriptive, elitist, hierarchical, stable, cautious and restrained.  Ontario’s Political Culture Sid Noel has suggested that Ontario’s political culture has five operating principles: 1. the importance of economic success; 2. assumption of Ontario’s pre-eminence in the federation; 3. the requirement of managerial efficiency in government; 4. expectation of reciprocity in political relationships; 5. balancing of interests.  Ontario’s Political Culture These values have resulted in the longstanding dominance of the Conservative party of Ontario. This dominance began before Confederation and has come under different labels, e.g. currently Progressive Conservative party. Party politics reflects the values of Ontario’s political culture, but those values have been challenged by the greater recognition of Indigenous rights and the values of immigrant communities. Political Economy of Ontario The Core Region of Canada  Dependency Theory Dependency theory emphasizes the relations between different spatial entities – some entities dependent on others Core versus periphery, metropolitan versus hinterland thesis In Canada, traditionally this has meant the dominance of southern Ontario (and Montreal) over the outlying regions - Largest share of national population, corporate head offices, banks, insurance, communications and culture In Ontario, Toronto is dominant over the rest of the province In Toronto, the city core is dominant over the suburbs and outlying areas  Staples Theory Stresses the importance of natural resources to the national economy Harold Innis credited for his application of the political economy approach to Canada Succession of resources – termed “staples” – exported to Europe and the USA Manufactured goods imported rather than produced locally  Staples Theory Staples exploited have included: - fish, especially from the Atlantic provinces and BC - fur - lumber - agricultural products everywhere, but especially from the Prairie provinces - minerals and fuels, especially from Central Canada, Alberta and BC  Staples Theory Staples theory stresses the degree of dependence and interregional exploitation within Canada and between Canada and other countries Underdeveloped economies are subject to international market fluctuations Secondary and tertiary industries arise that supply and service staples development; e.g. transportation, financial institutions, construction, manufacturing Political and Legal Response: Confederation  Confederation One of the primary goals of the act of Confederation in 1867 was to create a larger economic market than was available in the existing colonies and lay the groundwork for Canada’s expansion with the addition of new provinces and territories The Constitution Act of 1867 gave the federal government responsibility for the public debt; trade and commerce; raising money by any mode of taxation; borrowing of money; currency and coinage; banking and paper money; savings banks; bills of exchange and promissory notes; interest; legal tender; bankruptcy and insolvency; patents; copyrights; and residual powers Federal government also assumed the Crown’s responsibilities for Indigenous peoples  PROVINCIAL POWERS IN THE CONSTITUTION ACT OF 1867 Sections 58-90 set out the Provincial political institutions - Sections 58-68 refer to the Executive - Sections 69-90 refer to the Legislative Assembly Section 92 enumerates the exclusive powers of provincial legislatures Section 93 deals with education Section 95 gives concurrent powers to federal and provincial governments over agriculture and immigration  PROVINCIAL POWERS IN THE CONSTITUTION ACT OF 1867 Section 92 includes: Amendment of provincial constitutions Direct taxation Prisons Hospitals Municipal institutions Marriages Property and Civil Rights Courts Law enforcement Generally all matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province  Confederation Ontario and each of the other provinces also were left with direct taxation; borrowing of money; shop, saloon, tavern, auctioneer and other licences; incorporation of companies; health care, education, social programs and property and civil rights One of the chief beneficiaries of Confederation was Ontario, especially Ontario business interests  Confederation We are left with many anomalies as society and the economy have become more complex; for example: - banks are a federal matter, but credit unions and co-operatives are regulated provincially - the federal government can tax anything and anywhere, but provinces can only level direct taxes; e.g. provincial sales taxes required vendors to become agents of the provincial government collecting taxes from customers - both orders of government can incur debts, but the federal government, as a sovereign nation, normally has a higher credit rating and pays lower interest rates on that debt - railroads and airlines are regulated federally, but roads and highways are a provincial matter  Canadian Economic History BNA or Constitution Act of 1867 created a larger economic and financial market Market integration Increased bargaining power Sharing of costs Pooling and sharing of risks Trade and Commerce clause, section 91.2, of the Constitution Act of 1867  Political Economy of Ontario The Ontario economy had its basis in agriculture and in resource development. Since the 19th century, Ontario has been the manufacturing centre of Canada. - The automotive sector has been the most important. Ontario became a branch plant and branch office economy in the 20th century, first subordinate to British corporations and then to American. Private sector investment became important from either domestic or, more likely, foreign corporations. An important agreement with the US was the Auto Pact of 1965 which permitted motor vehicles and parts to pass freely over the border. Political Economy of Ontario - Transportation Railway construction in the 19th and early 20th centuries benefited Toronto and kept it competitive. Both the CPR west and Interprovincial Railway east kept Ontario competitive against Montreal and American railroads coming up from the US. In the 20th century, air routes were chartered through Pearson International Airport in Toronto as it became the “hub” for all of Canada – even though the head office of Air Canada is located in Montreal and the head office of WestJet is in Calgary.  Political Economy of Ontario - Transportation Ground transportation in Ontario is heavily reliant on the 400 series of highways, e.g. 401, 407, 400 and the QEW - multi-lane freeways with controlled access. Those 400 series of freeways carry motorists across southern Ontario but are also concerned with international traffic to the US. They do little or nothing for pan Canadian transportation across northern Ontario or linking Ontario with the rest of the country. The last major initiative involving all 10 provinces, the Trans Canada Highway, was begun in the 1950s and is a two or four lane highway from town to town.  Political Economy of Ontario Free Trade Agreement with the US shut down much of Ontario’s manufacturing sector Peter Graefe, writing in your textbook, uses Statistics Canada data to show that: - as a share of GDP, Manufacturing in Ontario fell from 21.7 per cent in 1997 to 10.9 per cent in 2021 - as a share of employment, Manufacturing fell from 19.5 per cent in 1997 to 10.6 per cent in 2021 - as a share of Manufacturing in Canada, Ontario fell from 51.8 per cent in 1997 to 44.3 per cent in 2019  Political Economy of Ontario Gains in the service sector have been made in: - professional, scientific, and technical services - construction - finance and insurance - health care and social services. Toronto dominates several areas of the economy, especially banking and insurance. The Big Five banks – RBC, TD, CIBC, BMO, BNS – all have their head offices on Bay Street. Some of the largest insurance companies in Canada have their headquarters in Ontario – Manulife, Sun Life, Aviva Canada, CAA, Co- operators.  Political Economy of Ontario Ottawa dominates the federal government’s activities, Toronto the Province’s. Toronto also dominates the traditional mass media - The Globe and Mail and Toronto Star newspapers have the largest circulations in the country. Both are based in Toronto. - Television across Canada is dominated by the CBC, CTV and Global, all headquartered in Toronto. Only exceptions are French language services located in Montreal Ontario Within Canada Since Confederation  Ontario Within Canada The formation of new federations with power asymmetries, such as Canada at the time of its constitutional moment in the 1860s, led to asymmetric representation, also referred to as the malapportionment of political representation. The same power asymmetries that led to asymmetric representation also led to some sub-national jurisdictions, notably the Maritime provinces, obtaining a share of federal government spending that was disproportionate to their share of the country’s population or their contribution toward federal government revenues.  Ontario Within Canada The smaller provinces and the territories served as cheap or low- maintenance partners for the larger provinces, like Ontario, at the time of Confederation and in subsequent years. Both malapportionment and fiscal redistribution have continued long after the formation of the new federation. Confederation was a critical juncture in which both political malapportionment and fiscal redistribution were part of the federal bargain. Path dependence has ensured that both malapportionment and fiscal redistribution have been persistent features of Canadian federalism and that they have been accentuated over time and are greater now than at any time since Confederation.  Ontario Within Canada The House of Commons and the Senate, the federal cabinet, and the office of the Prime Minister all have increased the degree of malapportionment of the federal government and resulted in underrepresentation for Ontario. At the same time, progressive forms of taxation, direct spending by the federal government, and intergovernmental grants all have expanded exponentially and accentuated fiscal redistribution from Ontario to the smaller and less affluent provinces and territories. - BC and Alberta and their resource-based economies joined Ontario as net contributors to the Balance of Confederation. ELECTIONS AND THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM FEDERAL Topic 3 – 17 September 2024  Federal Election Results in Ontario, 2021 Seats Ontario Rest of Canada Canada Liberals 78 82 160 Conservatives 37 82 119 New Democrats 5 20 25 Greens 1 1 2 Bloc Quebecois 0 32 32 Total 121 217 338 Source: Elections Canada  Federal Election Results, 2021 Liberals relatively strong in Ontario. - They received almost half their seats in Ontario. - More than twice as many seats as the Conservatives in Ontario. - Much stronger than in the rest of Canada. Conservatives relatively weak in Ontario. - Less than one third of their MPs come from Ontario. - Much stronger elsewhere, especially western Canada. NDP relatively weak in Ontario. - Elected more MPs in BC than in Ontario. Greens hold one seat in Ontario; one in BC.  Federal Election Results in Ontario, 2021 Note that the City of Toronto only elected Liberal MPs. - Most seats in the GTA also elected Liberals. - Ottawa also elected nothing but Liberals. - Hamilton mostly Liberal but some NDP support and Conservative MPs nearby. Conservative MPs strongest in rural, southern Ontario. - Limited representation in northern Ontario, but none in the City of Toronto. - Most of the seats surrounding the GTA are held by Conservative MPs. New Democrats have limited support with MPs scattered around the province. Northern Ontario MPs are mostly Liberals, but a couple of NDP and one Conservative.  Federal Election Results, 2021 Note that the Liberals won a majority of seats in Ontario in the federal general election. - Liberals failed to obtain a majority of seats in Canada as a whole, i.e. among MPs. Note that the Conservatives held a majority of seats in Ontario in the provincial general election of 2022. - Conservatives obtained fewer seats among MPs in 2021 than the Liberals in Ontario but the same number in the rest of Canada. Interprovincial Redistribution Federal House of Commons  Maldistribution in the House of Commons As specified in the 72 Quebec Resolutions of 1864 and section 40 of the Constitution Act of 1867, Quebec was allocated a fixed number of seats, 65 MPs; the other provinces, including Ontario, were allocated electoral districts proportionately. The Constitution of Canada requires that federal electoral districts be reviewed after each decennial (10-year) census to reflect changes and movements in Canada's population. After Confederation layering of the rules took place as new provinces were provided with more seats in Parliament than their populations would warrant.  Maldistribution in the House of Commons In 1915, section 51A of the Constitution added a “senatorial floor” to the redistribution process, and this resulted in a significant departure from “rep. by pop.” Section 51.1.2, the “grandfather clause,” guaranteed that no province would have fewer seats than it had in 1985 and, in so doing, provided an overall “floor” below which the number of MPs from each province could not fall. Section 51.2 of the Constitution also guaranteed that each of the three territories would have at least one seat in the Commons. After the 2011 census, the rules were changed again to protect Quebec and the smaller provinces. House of Commons Seat Allocation by Province for 2015 and 2019 General Elections On December 16, 2011, the Chief Electoral Officer calculated the House of Commons seats allocated to each province using the representation formula found in the Constitution and the population estimates provided by Statistics Canada from the decennial census. In the redistribution that took place after the 2011 census, a “representation rule” was added. It specified that, if a province was previously overrepresented in the Commons and the existing rules would mean that it would be underrepresented, it would “be given extra seats so that its share of House of Commons seats is proportional to its share of the population. This provision guaranteed that each province’s share of seats could not decline in proportion to its share of the population.  House of Commons Seat Allocation for 2015 and 2019 General Elections “Representation Rule” added three more seats for Quebec to reflect its share of the population Redistribution added 15 more seats for Ontario, six more seats for Alberta and six more seats for BC Ontario, BC and Alberta still have fewer seats than their populations would warrant Other seven provinces and three territories are all “over-represented” in the Commons  Deviation From “Rep by Pop” Ontario’s provincial government claimed that the province was not going to receive an adequate number of MPs. In the words of then Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty: “It will undermine some of our most cherished democratic rights: representation by population; one person, one vote; equality under the law and effective representation”.  Most Recent Federal Redistribution The most recent federal redistribution process began in October 2021. The Chief Electoral Officer was tasked with applying the representation formula found in the Constitution to determine the new allocation of seats. Source: Elections Canada https://redecoupage-redistribution- 2022.ca/red/index_e.aspx  Federal Electoral System – Interprovincial Redistribution On June 23, 2022 , Parliament amended the Representation Formula, which determines the number of Members of Parliament (MPs) to be assigned to each province. The new legislation ensured that every province retained, as a minimum, the same number of MPs that it had been assigned during the 43rd Parliament elected in 2019. Using the new formula, the Chief Electoral Officer recalculated how many MPs each province was assigned. As a result, the province of Quebec will have 78 MPs, instead of the 77 calculated under the previous Representation Formula in October 2021.  Federal Electoral System – Interprovincial Redistribution After all that, Ontario is still underrepresented in the House of Commons - BC and Alberta are in the same position as Ontario vis a vis the other provinces. The three provinces together have at least 16 fewer seats than expected given their combined populations. Intraprovincial Redistribution Federal House of Commons Source: Elections Canada elections.ca  Intraprovincial Redistribution Federal House of Commons For a detailed history of elections in Canada see: A History of the Vote in Canada published by Elections Canada elections.ca / Resource Centre / A History of the Vote in Canada See also The Electoral System of Canada – 4th Edition published by Elections Canada elections.ca / Resource Centre / The Electoral System of Canada  Intraprovincial Redistribution Federal House of Commons The Constitution Act, 1867 established a mechanism for adjusting the boundaries of individual ridings, after each 10-year census. Initially, the government determined the boundary placements, but the Representation Act of 1903 conferred this job on a committee of the House of Commons. In 1964, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (EBRA) established an impartial process for redrawing constituency borders in Canada–one that has remained essentially unchanged. The premise underlying the impartiality sought by EBRA is that the responsibility for boundary adjustment must be assigned to formally non- partisan bodies. To this end, the legislation provides for the appointment, in each province, of an independent electoral boundaries commission to supervise the redistribution process.  Intraprovincial Redistribution The purpose of electoral boundaries commissions is to avoid gerrymandering as is practiced in the US. Gerrymandering is a selective drawing of constituency boundaries in order to alter the results of an election.The popular or numerical election results within an electoral district can be distorted by the act of gerrymandering. Common alterations to election results caused by gerrymandering are: - Splitting or dilution of the concentrations of votes for one party so as to make that party is the minority in a large portion of the constituencies - Concentrating the votes of one party into a selected few constituencies such that many of their votes are ‘wasted’, while creating many constituencies with only slight majorities in favor of the other party - Placing two or more incumbents of one party within a single revised constituency, thus removing control of seats for that party  Intraprovincial Redistribution Federal House of Commons The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act entrusts the redistribution of electoral districts within each province to independent boundary commissions. Territories are excepted since each comprises a single riding– their boundaries, therefore, need no adjustment. This has been the case since 1999, when Nunavut was established and the two ridings making up the Northwest Territories were separated. (Yukon has held its single riding since becoming a distinct territory in 1898.) Redistribution remains a 10-year exercise, as set out in the Constitution Act, 1867.  Federal Electoral Boundaries Commissions Electoral boundaries commissions are established, consisting of a Chair – a provincial court judge – appointed by the Chief Justice of each province, and two residents of the province, appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Their role is to review the federal electoral boundaries for their province. The commissions must be established by Elections Canada after which each commission develops a redistribution plan that is published in newspaper ads, along with times and locations for public hearings. Upon written notice to the commission, any interested individual or group– including sitting MPs and senators–can speak at the hearings.  Federal Electoral Boundaries Commissions A designated House of Commons electoral committee receives the commissions' reports. MPs have 30 days to file written objections to the reports, which must be signed by at least 10 MPs. The committee then has another 30 days to discuss these objections before returning the reports, with their comments, to the commissions. The commissions modify the reports – or not, as they choose – then forward their final boundary decisions to the Chief Electoral Officer.  Federal Redistribution Within Ontario The most recent redistribution was led by independent commissions working separately in each of the 10 provinces to establish electoral boundaries. Each province was assigned a “quota”, i.e provincial population divided by the number of MPs from that province. Ontario had the highest quota in the country - BC and Alberta also had high quotas. - PEI had the lowest quota; Newfoundland and New Brunswick also had low quotas.  Average Populations of Electoral Districts in Each Province, 2022 Province Population Quota Alberta 115,206 British Columbia 116,300 Manitoba 95,868 New Brunswick 77,561 Newfoundland and Labrador 72,936 Nova Scotia 88,126 Ontario 116,590 Prince Edward Island 38,583 Quebec 110,413 Saskatchewan 80,893  Rep. by Pop.? Hardly! This means it takes more votes in Ontario - and BC and Alberta – to elect an MP than in the rest of Canada. Average MP in Ontario represents 116,590 people. Average MP in PEI represents 38,583 people. MPs in Newfoundland represent 72,936 people, in New Brunswick 77,561, and in Saskatchewan 80,893 people. APPENDIX 2021 FEDERAL RESULTS - VOTES Political Party Affiliation N.L. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Quebec Ontario Manitoba Sask. Alberta B.C. Yukon N.W.T. Nunavut Animal Protection Party of Canada/Le Parti pour la Protection des Animaux du Canada 0 0 0 0 873 1187 213 0 0 273 0 0 0 Bloc Québécois/Bloc Québécois 0 0 0 0 1301615 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canada's Fourth Front/Quatrième front du Canada 0 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 Canadian Nationalist Party/Parti Nationaliste Canadien 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Centrist Party of Canada/Parti Centriste du Canada 0 0 0 0 0 555 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 Christian Heritage Party of Canada/Parti de l'Héritage Chrétien du Canada 0 145 85 0 192 4154 712 195 2198 1304 0 0 0 Communist Party of Canada/Parti communiste du Canada 0 0 336 158 399 1487 343 100 497 1380 0 0 0 Conservative Party of Canada/Parti conservateur du Canada 70783 26673 144315 133678 756412 2251826 224682 304698 1075638 750394 5096 2031 1184 Free Party Canada/Parti Libre Canada 0 0 0 2217 44214 821 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Party of Canada/Le Parti Vert du Canada 0 8048 8902 20162 61488 142678 9435 5699 17483 121919 846 328 0 Liberal Party of Canada/Parti libéral du Canada 104240 39046 207237 168945 1364485 2535222 160206 54731 299493 608588 6471 5387 2578 Libertarian Party of Canada/Parti Libertarien du Canada 0 0 0 234 0 2095 373 0 1232 831 0 0 0 Marijuana Party/Parti Marijuana 0 0 0 0 1901 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada/Parti Marxiste-Léniniste du Canada 0 0 127 0 1669 1165 0 0 893 678 0 0 0 Maverick Party/Maverick Party 0 0 0 0 0 0 339 7279 25670 1890 0 0 0 National Citizens Alliance of Canada/Alliance Nationale des Citoyens du Canada 0 0 0 0 0 358 0 0 118 0 0 0 0 New Democratic Party/Nouveau Parti démocratique 37743 7802 107832 47353 395401 1153119 131591 108720 370394 664054 4354 4558 3427 Parti Patriote/Parti Patriote 0 0 0 0 244 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parti pour l'Indépendance du Québec/Parti pour l'Indépendance du Québec 0 0 0 0 2934 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parti Rhinocéros Party/Parti Rhinocéros Party 0 0 65 0 3926 926 80 0 829 259 0 0 0 People's Party of Canada/Parti populaire du Canada 5150 2748 19365 24346 108744 350150 43519 33969 142479 110523 0 0 0 Veterans Coalition Party of Canada/Parti de la coalition des anciens combattants du Canada 0 0 0 0 216 255 17 0 758 0 0 0 0 Independent/Indépendant(e) 0 0 643 708 4193 8378 1660 433 2721 2439 2639 1791 0 No Affiliation/Aucune appartenance 0 0 0 0 4283 0 0 0 2593 0 0 0 0 ELECTIONS AND THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM PROVINCIAL Topic 3 – 17 September 2024  Ontario Votes 2022 Provincial Election PARTY AFFILIATION Vote Share (%) Seats Progressive Conservatives 40.84 83 New Democrats 23.73 31 Liberals 23.85 8 Greens 5.96 1 Other 5.62 1 TOTAL 100.00 124 Source: Elections Ontario https://results.elections.on.ca/en/graphics-charts https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-election-2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Ontario_general_election https://globalnews.ca/news/8874755/ontario-election-results-2022/ https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial-elections/see-ontario-election-results-from- across-the-province/article_e029eaea-7213-5ee6-bf61-60954d76fd15.html  2022 Provincial Election - MPPs By Region Toronto PC 12 NDP 9 Ottawa NDP 2 LIB 3 LIB 4 Durham PC 4 NDP 1 North PC 4 NDP 7 Niagara PC 1 NDP 3 Mississauga PC 6 Windsor PC 1 NDP 1 Hamilton PC 1 NDP 3 All Other PC 51 LIB 1 Kitchener PC 2 NDP 2 GN 1 Ind 1 London PC 1 NDP 3  How Ontario Voted in 2022 PCs form “majority” govern  Election Results a Misrepresentation of Voters Intentions? Fair Vote Canada claims that the 2022 election results were a gross misrepresentation of what voters said with their ballots. The PCs got a landslide majority with just 40.84% of the vote. They won a whopping 83 seats―that’s 7 more seats than 2018 with only 0.33 points more of the popular vote. The Liberal Party earned more of the popular vote than the NDP―23.85% vs 23.73%―but the NDP’s voters elected 31 MPPs and Liberal voters only elected 8. Despite the Liberal’s support of almost one quarter of Ontario voters, first-past-the-post means the Ontario Liberal Party was again denied official party status in the legislature, making it even more difficult for the party to represent its voters. If “Did Not Vote” was a party in the 2022 Ontario election… They would have won the election in a landslide. As a percentage of eligible voters, the following received the support of: DNV: 57 per cent PCs: 18 per cent Liberals: 10 per cent NDP: 10 per cent Greens: 3 per cent  Ontario’s Electoral System Ontario uses an electoral system known as “first past the post” because it is likened to a horse race or car race. It is more properly termed a single member simple plurality electoral system. Fair Vote Canada and other commentators have asserted that in the last election in Ontario the PCs formed a “majority” government with 40.84% of the vote: Ontario voters were cheated by first- past-the-post https://www.fairvote.ca/04/06/2022/pcs-form-majority- government-with-40-83-of-the-vote-ontario-voters-cheated-by- first-past-the-post/  Election Results a Misrepresentation of Voters Intentions? Greens increased their popular vote share from 4.6% in 2018 to 5.96% but still elected only one MPP (Mike Schreiner) to represent the 279,265 people who voted Green in Ontario. 54% of voters – 2,531,087 – cast wasted votes that elected no one. Voter turnout fell to 43.54%. That means the current “majority” government is supported by 17.77% of eligible voters. In a winner-take-all electoral system, many people feel they must vote for the lesser evil, or are discouraged from voting at all.  Fair Vote Canada Proposes Fair Vote Canada claims it’s time for parties in Ontario to put evidence and voters first by moving ahead quickly to convene an independent, non-partisan Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. A citizens’ assembly is a body of citizens formed to deliberate on an important policy issue and make recommendations. Citizens’ assemblies are based on evidence that when given the knowledge, resources and time, citizens can find solutions to complex and controversial issues.  Political Support for Electoral Reform Political parties tend to support proportional representation when they are in opposition to the government of the day; then forget all about it when elected. - The NDP has supported electoral reform provincially and federally, but even though it has formed the government in six provinces it has never implemented proportional representation. In Ontario, the Green Party promises to create a diverse, randomly selected Citizens Assembly on electoral reform with a mandate to provide binding recommendations on modernising Ontario’s electoral system to ensure that every vote counts and the legislature reflects the democratic will of the people. Intraprovincial Redistribution Ontario Provincial Parliament  Electoral System and the Party System Each member of the House of Commons or a provincial legislature represents only one electoral district and each electoral district is represented by only one MP or MLA/MPP/MNA Previously, some electoral districts were represented by more than one legislator Some provinces, like Ontario, follow the federal example and have an independent boundaries commission redraw constituency boundaries every 10 years As at the federal level, the purpose of provinces electoral boundaries commissions is to avoid gerrymandering as is practiced in the US.  Ontario’s Provincial Electoral Districts The 124 Ontario provincial electoral districts each elect one representative to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. In 1996, the government of Mike Harris reduced the number of MPPs and electoral districts and made district boundaries the same as for federal electoral districts. The current districts are coterminous with the previous federal electoral districts in southern Ontario, and are based on the 2013 Representation Order as defined by Elections Canada. The exception is Northern Ontario, whose districts are not equivalent to their federal complements, since the provincial government did not want to decrease the number of districts in Northern Ontario.  Electoral Boundaries Commission in Ontario In 2005, Ontario established its own Electoral Boundaries Commission (Ontario). Commissions are to be established each time there is a decennial census in Canada. The Commission is composed of three members: a judge and two persons appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly from among persons entitled to vote in an Ontario election. The Commission prepares an initial report recommending the division of Ontario into electoral districts, except that there must be at least 11 electoral districts in Northern Ontario. In making the division, the Commission is required to follow the general principle that each electoral district must have a population that is as close as reasonably possible to the average population for all electoral districts, subject to the limitation of the minimum number of electoral districts in Northern Ontario.  Electoral Boundaries Commission in Ontario Based on certain specified criteria, the Commission can depart from that principle within a margin of 25 per cent up or down. Before completing its initial report, the Commission is required to hold at least one public hearing. The Electoral Boundaries Commission submits its initial report to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. - If members object to it, the report is referred to a standing committee of the Assembly that makes recommendations. - The Commission then prepares its final report and the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes a representation order to implement the recommendations of the Commission. - The order applies to the general election to the Assembly that next follows a period of one year after the day on which the order is made. Source: Electoral Boundaries Commission (Ontario) Act  Representation Act in Ontario In December 2015, the Representation Act, 2015 was enacted. It increased the number of Ontario electoral districts from 107 to 122. In December 2016, the Representation Act, 2015 was amended and established the Far North Electoral Boundaries Commission. Its mandate was to review two of the electoral district boundaries and make recommendations about the creation of one or two more electoral districts in that geographic area.  Far North Electoral Boundaries Commission The provincial government tasked the commissioners with looking at how representation could be improved in our province’s two largest and northernmost ridings: Kenora-Rainy River and Timmins-James Bay. Throughout the spring the commission met with communities across Northern Ontario, including representatives from Indigenous and Francophone communities, in order to gain the local perspective of people living in the far north. In its final report, submitted on August 1, 2017, the Commission recommended the creation of two additional electoral districts. Legislation was enacted on October 25, 2017, increasing the number of electoral districts in Ontario from 107 to 124 for the 2018 General Election.  Ford government to break with tradition and not adopt federal boundary changes for next election Premier Doug Ford says Ontario is breaking with tradition and not adopting federal electoral boundary changes for the next provincial election, meaning there will be 124 ridings contested. “No,” said Ford on Thursday when asked whether Queen’s Park would follow Ottawa’s lead and increase the number of constituencies in the province. Source: Toronto Star  Ford’s Political Decision Contradicts the Constitution and Erodes Democracy Constitutional practice has always dictated that the boundaries of provincial electoral districts be revised after each and every decennial census. To not do so makes the votes of some electors worth more than other electors and contravenes the spirit of democracy. The most recent redistribution came into effect in 2018 and increased the number of MPPs from 107 to 124, 13 in the north and 111 southern electoral districts. In 2021 Statistics Canada conducted the decennial census for Ontario and all of the other provinces and territories.  Ford’s Decision is a Political Decision That Benefits Some Parts of the Province to the Detriment of Others The City of Toronto and Northern Ontario benefit because their populations have not grown as quickly as the rest of the province - Parts of Toronto, like Scarborough, are a smaller share of the province’s population. The federal redistribution takes away one MP because only five of the 25 existing districts are above the provincial quota. - Toronto will now have 24 MPs, but retain 25 MPPs as previously.  Ford’s Decision is a Political Decision That Benefits Some Parts of the Province to the Detriment of Others Parts of the North have populations that are declining or at least not growing. The federal redistribution took away one MP. Other parts of Ontario are to receive less adequate provincial representation than they enjoy federally. - Central Ontario – Barrie – will have one more MP than MPP. - Brampton-Caledon area will have one more MP than MPP - Burlington-Guelph area will have one more MP than MPP  Impact on the City of Toronto In 2018, Doug Ford reduced the size of Toronto City Council from 47 to 25 and threatened to use the Constitution’s “notwithstanding clause” to make it happen. As per Ford’s Better Local Government Act, the 25 seats on Council were to represent wards whose boundaries were coterminous with the provincial boundaries’ electoral districts.  Impact on the City of Toronto The City of Toronto elects one Mayor, currently Olivia Chow, and 25 City Councillors. The Mayor and each Councillor are elected by the first past the post electoral system - city wide in the case of the Mayor, - in each Ward for each Councillor. Ford’s decision to maintain the existing provincial boundaries also means the existing ward boundaries will remain the same in Toronto. Wards like Etobicoke-Lakeshore and Spadina-Fort York will be under- represented on Council, while Don Valley East and West and most of Scarborough will continue to be over-represented.  RELATED TOPICS: INTEREST GROUPS, POPULISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA INTEREST GROUPS  Interest Groups and their Influence on Government Types of interest groups Federal-provincial distribution of interest groups Policy advocacy Policy participation Policy communities Policy networks Clientelism  Interest Groups in Ontario Business: Health Care: Ontario Chamber of Commerce Ontario Hospital Association (OHA) Toronto Board of Trade Ontario Nurses Association Labour: Ontario Medical Association (OMA) Ontario Federation of Labour Education: Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation (OSSTF) Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO) Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA) Council of Ontario Universities (COU)  Participants and Processes Participants include: - politicians - lobbyists - bureaucrats - mass media - academics - general public Processes include an: - “impetus” that raises the issue on the agenda - “constraint” that changes the way an issue is presented on the agenda There are also “focusing events” that are sudden, attention grabbing situations that gain a lot of media attention and may lead to changes in public policy Focusing events can be prominent, sensational or real-world impactful Feedback assesses public opinion about certain policies to reinforce, stabilize or undermine that policy  Policy Communities Agenda items are usually initiated and structured by policy communities. Policy communities are a wide set of actors that include all those who have an interest in, are informed about and are active in a particular policy field They share a common language even though they may be opponents on any particular issue Policy communities are sets of government agencies, advocacy groups, corporations, institutions, media, academics and other individuals who have an interest in a particular policy field and attempt to influence that policy field  Policy Communities Every policy community consists of: 1. a sub-government, which includes the lead government agency, other policy-making agencies, and a small group of agencies who may be consulted on a daily basis 2. the attentive public, which includes the other government agencies, advocacy groups, corporations, institutions, the media and academics Policy gets made in subsystems that are microcosms of all the relevant political and institutional actors Decision making takes place in the sub-government, dominated by large institutions, key groups and core government agencies  Policy Communities Policy communities include an attentive public that involves advocacy groups, corporations, institutions, media and individuals An attentive public generates ideas and discussion and attempts to establish legitimacy with the lead agency That legitimacy can lead to appointments to advisory committees, consultation and access, and cooperation  Policy Communities and Policy Networks Policy networks are a narrower set of interdependent actors within the policy communities with - a higher level of interest in the policy field and - more formal, frequent, organized and regular interaction Policy networks emphasize the role of information and expertise rather than merely interest articulation Interactions within and among government agencies and social organizations constitute policy networks that are instrumental in formulating and developing policy  Policy Networks Government departments are expected to consult the voluntary sector of interest groups, individuals, policy-oriented organizations, and think tanks to execute better public policy Government consultation with outside groups is crucial and often initiated by government Governments may pay the voluntary non-profit sector, outside public interest groups, policy-oriented organizations and think-tanks to develop information and policy Policy networks vary according to their level of integration, i.e. How cohesive is the group being represented?  Policy Advocacy Interest groups traditionally and often are seen in terms of their “input” function – making demands on government through interest articulation – in their role as part of the policy advocacy process on behalf of their particular group This can be done most effectively by forming a clientele relationship with a department or agency of government. This form of clientelism has many examples: - Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness - Ontario Medical Association and the Ministry of Health - various business associations and the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade  Clientele Interest groups also perform various implementation or “output” functions as part of their clientele relationship Relationships are initiated and persist between specific interest groups and specific government departments Clientelism is a two-way street: the government agency promotes the interests of the group; the interest group informs and influences its members Lead government agency becomes an extension of the group interest, making policy and promoting the interests of the group within government A particular interest group may be better equipped to inform its specialized membership or audience about new laws, regulations or government programs  Policy Advocacy Sometimes particular interest groups are delegated powers of self- regulation and are used by governments to: - offload services - improve service delivery, or - encourage civic engagement Interest groups also may participate in permanent or ad hoc advisory government committees Government officials may participate in certain interest groups and personnel may follows a career path that moves individuals between the government bureaucracy and the advocacy group  Advocacy Coalitions Advocacy coalitions are a wide range of actors, including governments from all levels, officials, interest organizations, research groups, journalists, and even other countries, e.g. Ontario Health Coalition These actors share a belief system about a policy area and, over time, demonstrate some degree of coordinated activity - These are subsets of actors – both public and private - in the policy subsystem These actors are from public and private sector institutions who share a basic set of beliefs and who seek to manipulate the rules, budgets and personnel of government - Note the important role of shared ideas and values between the public and private sectors  Lobbyists Policy advocacy can involve the work of professional lobbyists, consultants and government relations firms which actively try to influence government authorities At the federal level, Lobbyists Registration Act was implemented in 1989 and replaced by the Lobbying Act, 2008. The RCMP and the Federal Accountability Act attempt to regulate lobbyists federally Thousands of lobbyists are registered with the federal Commissioner of Lobbying, lobbyists who are largely financed by big business  Lobbyists Registrar In Ontario, the Conflict of Interest Act was passed in 1988. It established an Integrity Commissioner of Ontario which, under the Lobbyists Registration Act, provides for a Lobbyists Registrar. oico.on.ca The Lobbyists Registrar maintains an online public record of lobbyists and may conduct investigations into allegations of non-compliance. The Lobbyists Registrar is to issue a lobbyists’ code of conduct. At present, a code of conduct has not been issued. The Lobbyists Registrar submits an annual report to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.  Lobbyists Local governments and the Broader Public Sector – BPS - also may hire lobbyists to exert influence on the federal and Ontario governments The Ontario government itself may hire lobbyists to exert influence on the federal and foreign governments, e.g. the US government Populism  Current and Past Leaders Considered as Populists Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Ross Perot (USA) Stephen Harper, Preston Manning and the Reform Party (Canada) Rob Ford and Doug Ford? (Ontario) Boris Johnson and Brexit movement (UK) Marine Le Pen (France) Silvio Berlusconi (Italy) Hugo Chavez (Venezuela)  Populism: A Threat to Democracy? Populist leaders have claimed to champion the “people” against the “elite” in the name of popular sovereignty and defending democracy The term “populism” was first attached to the American agrarian movement in the 1890s in the southern and midwestern US. This led to the People’s Party, which adopted the name “populist” from the Latin “populus” – the people. In Canada, the United Farmers or Progressives employed a populist language and appeal to voters in the 1920s, as did William Aberhart and Social Credit in the 1930s, the CCF in the 1930s and 1940s, and John Diefenbaker and the Progressive Conservatives in the 1950s Also was used in the US to describe McCarthyism in the 1950s  Populism: A Threat to Democracy? Populism was used to promote an ideology of popular resentment against the order imposed on society by a long-established, differentiated ruling class which is seen as having a monopoly of power, property, breeding and culture – Edward A. Shils Populism has also been seen as an extremist phenomenon based around xenophobia, anti-Semitism and anti-immigrant sentiment. Populists were viewed as members of declining social classes living in declining areas who become frustrated with their weakened position in society This view sees populists’ discontent leading to diverse irrational protest ideologies like regionalism, racism, supernationalism, anticosmopolitanism, McCarthyism or fascism – Seymour Martin Lipset Populism came to be seen as 1) an ideology; 2) a political movement; or 3) a political syndrome  Populism: A Threat to Democracy? Contemporary analysts see populism as 1) an ideology; 2) a strategy; 3) a discourse; 4) a political logic; or 5) a political style Populism as an “ideology” is A “thin” ideology that has a restricted or limited core and focuses on a limited number of key concepts Able to argue forcefully for the sovereignty of the people, but does little else Not fully formed but rather a limited set of concepts that is always combined with other “thick” ideologies; e.g. socialism, conservatism  Populism: A Threat to Democracy? Populism is a “strategy” through which a personalistic leader seeks or exercises government power Populism is based on direct, unmediated, uninstitutionalized support from large numbers of mostly unorganized followers  Populism: A Threat to Democracy? Viewing populism as a “discourse” sees it as pitting “the people” against the “elite” or the “oligarchy” Populism is seen as a particular mode of political expression, usually evident in speech or text A political actor can be more or less populist at different times depending on how and when they use populist discourse The political actor may have a populist discourse at times, but it may be employed to support a particular ideology  Populism: A Threat to Democracy? Populism as a “political style” sees it as involving a “performance” by political actors to audiences, a performance that might involve everything from the work of government through to everyday life Populism as a political style may be contrasted with a technocratic political style - A technocratic political style involves an appeal to expertise, “good manners”, stability and progress Populism as a political style involves an appeal to “the people” vs. “the elite”, “bad manners”, crisis, breakdown, threats Social Media  Social Media As A Benefit Or Threat to Democracy? The printing press and the rise of newspapers were instrumental in the rise of democratic government, radio brought political leaders into close proximity to voters in their homes, and television brought those leaders into the limelight so voters could see and hear them up close Social media can be expected to have a similarly large impact as did newspapers, radio and television as electors come to have a different relationship with political leaders, other interests and other voters However, digital misinformation campaigns, the decline of traditional media and the rise of a select group of tech firms like Google as today’s information gatekeepers have raised serious issues about the association between the digital age and democratic empowerment  Social Media As A Benefit Or Threat to Democracy? Digital government is the use of digital tools and approaches within the public service to better serve the public and enable citizens to monitor government activities, to open up the public sector to public scrutiny In the digital age, it is open government programs that democratize public administration. Open data and online citizen engagement have become accepted norms of good governance  Social Media As A Benefit Or Threat to Democracy This conflict is apparent in the design of government websites, which are often deliberately lacking in well-maintained and easily searchable archives of policy-relevant information (ministerial speeches, departmental reports, press releases, etc.) because service delivery gets priority There are notable tensions between mainstream digital government orthodoxy and the principles and practices of democratic governance, in particular in Canada’s Westminster system of government In the digital age, it is open government programs that democratize public administration. Open data and online citizen engagement have become accepted norms of good governance  POLITICAL PARTIES AND INTEREST GROUPS IN ONTARIO Topic 4 – 24 October 2024  Electoral System and the Party System In many countries, there is a consistent association between single- member simple plurality formulas and two-party political systems; e.g. USA Canada as an exception since 1917 First-past-the-post electoral systems over-represent swings in voting patterns, under-represent minority views, and over-represent regional views The electoral system is a promoter of regionalism and a source of division in the Canada – Alan C. Cairns  Electoral System and the Party System in Ontario Ontario is also an exception Ontario follows the same pattern as Canada with a single member, simple plurality electoral system but with more than two parties able to elect MPPs Unlike at the federal level, all three major parties have formed the provincial government during the past three decades  Political Party System Political parties in Ontario as at the federal level were structured as a two- party system for the first half century after Confederation, 1867 to 1917 - Conservatives versus Liberals with few major ideological differences between the two parties. Federally, this fell apart with the Unionist government of Robert Borden in 1917. In Ontario, it fell apart in 1919 with the election of the United Farmers of Ontario (UFO) government of Ernest C. Drury After that, federally the Progressives broke the two-party system with a major sweep of rural areas in 1921. The Independent Labour Party - ILP also won seats in working class urban areas - Ontario and Canada were transformed into multi-party political systems - The farmers also formed governments at the provincial level as the United Farmers of Manitoba and the United Farmers of Alberta  Political Party System - Ontario In the 1930s, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) began to elect MPPs led by Ted Joliffe and then Donald C. MacDonald In 1943, the CCF under Joliffe almost formed the government and elected 34 MPPs – compared to 38 Progressive Conservatives and 15 Liberals – and became the Official Opposition In the 1940s, specifically 1943, the Communist Party – or more specifically the Labor-Progressive Party - elected three MPPs. Two were from downtown Toronto and one from Windsor The New Democratic Party followed in the 1960s, picking up much of the CCFs support  Premiers and Political Parties in Ontario In 1867, Ontario elected John Sandfield Macdonald’s Conservative government In 1871, Liberals under Edward Blake took power, but he was succeeded by Oliver Mowat, Arthur Hardy and George Ross Conservatives came to office in 1905 under James Whitney, succeeded by William Hearst United Farmers of Ontario (UFO) formed the government in 1919 under Ernest Drury and ruled with the support of the Independent Labor Party (ILP) until 1923  Premiers and Political Parties in Ontario Conservatives dominant from 1923 until 1934, when they were replaced by the Liberals under Mitch Hepburn Beginning in 1943, PC Premiers George Drew, Leslie Frost, John Robarts, Bill Davis and Frank Miller ruled Ontario without a break for more than four decades Liberals under David Petersen formed a minority government in 1985 under the terms of a deal worked out with the NDP – even though the PCs won more seats in the election  Premiers and Political Parties in Ontario Liberals won a majority in 1987 but were defeated by Bob Rae and the NDP in 1990 In 1995, Mike Harris formed a PC majority government, re-elected in 1999, and succeeded by Ernie Eves Liberal government of Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne in office between 2003 and 2018 PC majority government under Doug Ford elected in 2018 Here are the current leaders of the four parties represented in the legislative assembly: Name the Leaders  Political Parties in Ontario The three major parties have core, bases of support: - the PCs in rural, small town, and suburban ridings - the NDP in industrial, blue-collar ridings in Toronto and other cities and in the north - the Liberals in Toronto and eastern Ontario, especially Francophone areas Greens represented only in smaller cities in rural, southern Ontario.  Political Parties in Ontario Theory of alternating support between federal and provincial governments; e.g. Liberal dominance in Ottawa through much of 20th century balanced by Conservative dominance in Ontario From 2003 to 2015, there was a Conservative government in Ottawa and a Liberal government at Queen’s Park Did Trudeau Liberals in Ottawa victory spell doom for the Wynne Liberals at Queen’s Park? Yet each party has a similar base of electoral support federally and provincially Political Parties, Regionalism and Federalism “In federal systems, parties are frequently called upon to...unify the nation. In Canada, broad based brokerage parties have long played a crucial nation-building role....” – Herman Bakvis and Brian Tanguay In Ontario, political parties have long played a crucial role in nation-building and province-building In the past, the were often challenged by Quebec versus Ontario conflicts, usually of a linguistic and religious nature  Political Party Organization and Federalism Parties-based theories of federalism, e.g. William Riker’s symmetrical vs. asymmetrical party systems; national recruitment of sub-national politicians; structure of the party system Ontario is symmetrical, i.e. same political parties at federal and provincial levels, no parties at local level Most party members, activists and members of local riding executives are engaged at both the federal and provincial level  Political Party Organization Federal vs. provincial dominance of political parties, i.e. usually party in government is dominant - Currently federal Liberals more important than provincial; provincial Conservatives more important; provincial NDP more important Importance of political party conventions, especially leadership conventions Left-right ideology in Ontario and Canadian politics: Conservatives on the right, Liberals in the centre, NDP on the left - How far right, how far left?  Political Party Organization - Recruitment Ontario has had limited national recruitment, e.g. Flaherty, Baird, Clement moved from provincial to federal politics under Stephen Harper. - About one quarter of federal Cabinet Ministers from Ontario had previous provincial experience, especially under Stephen Harper Most politicians run federally or provincially with little movement from one to the other Pruyers found that only 10 per cent of federal MPs from Ontario had previous provincial experience  Political Party Organization - Members Members hold party memberships in both the federal and provincial organizations – automatic 100 per cent in NDP, 60-70 per cent or more take out dual memberships in Liberal and PC parties Organizational design and ideology each can play a role in the integration of federal and provincial parties – only the NDP combines both to produce a high level of integration Most provincial and federal riding associations are autonomous most of the time – stratarchical relationship between the party on the ground, in the constituencies, and the party in public office Exception when it comes to candidate selection and vetting Political Parties in Ontario - Laws and Regulations Political parties in Ontario must be registered with Elections Ontario. There is no fee to register a political party. Successful registration allows a party to: - receive contributions and issue tax receipts; - finance the party’s political activities in a campaign period; - be reimbursed for campaign expenses; and - have constituency associations and candidates.  Registered Political Parties in Ontario Stop the New Sex-Ed Agenda Stop the New Sex-Ed Agenda Public Benefit Party of Ontario Public Benefit Party Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario PC Party of Ontario Populist Party Ontario Populist Ontario People's Progressive Common Front of Ontario Ontario People's Front Party for People with Special Needs Party for People with Special Needs Ontario Provincial Confederation of Regions Party Ontario Provincial Confederation of Regions Party Ontario Party Ontario Party Ontario Moderate Party Ontario Moderate Party Ontario Libertarian Party Libertarian Ontario Liberal Party Ontario Liberal Party Ontario Centrist Party CPO  Registered Political Parties in Ontario Ontario Alliance Alliance Northern Ontario Party Northern Ontario Party None of the Above Direct Democracy Party None of the Above Direct Democracy Party New Democratic Party of Ontario Ontario NDP/NPD New Blue Party of Ontario New Blue Party Green Party of Ontario Green Party of Ontario GPO Freedom Party of Ontario Freedom Party of Ontario Freedom of Choice, Peace & Justice Party Freedom of Choice, Peace & Justice Party Family Rights Party Family Rights Electoral Reform Party Electoral Reform Party Consensus Ontario Consensus Communist Party of Canada (Ontario) Communist Canadians' Choice Party CCP  Political Parties in Ontario – Laws and Regulations Constituency Associations A constituency association, sometimes known as a riding association, is an organization formed in an electoral district to support a political party or an independent member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Provincial constituency associations in Ontario must follow the rules as outlined in the Election Finances Act. All constituency associations in Ontario must be registered with Elections Ontario. Political Party Financing  Political Party Financing In Ontario and federally, Conservative and Liberal parties traditionally financed by Bay Street bagmen – common during the first century after Confederation Contributions to political parties, constituency associations, candidates, leadership and nomination contestants may only be made by individuals normally resident in Ontario using their own funds. Contributions to third parties may be made by: - individuals normally resident in Ontario using their own funds; - corporations carrying on business in Ontario that are not registered charities; or - trade unions.  Public Financing of Parties and Constituency Associations The largest funding amounts come from individuals making donations to parties and candidates - How much should individuals be permitted to donate? Should governments be providing financial support to parties and candidates? Public financing in Ontario is at a minimum – tax credits for donations and partial funding of election expenses – less than for federal parties Funding of election expenses has been eliminated by the Ford government  Political Party Financing Political Parties Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) has determined an allowance payable to a registered party whose candidates in the last election received at least: - Two per cent of the number of valid votes cast; or five per cent of the number of valid votes cast in the electoral districts in which the registered party endorsed a candidate. The quarterly allowance is calculated by multiplying the quarterly rate by the number of valid votes a party’s candidates received in the previous general election. The payment of quarterly allowances ceases on December 31, 2024  Political Party Allowances 2024 Political Party Name 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Green Party of Ontario $178,069.19 $178,069.19 $178,069.19 New Democratic Party $710,015.77 $710,015.77 $710,015.77 of Ontario Ontario Liberal Party $714,897.71 $714,897.71 $714,897.71 Progressive Conservative $1,221,039.86 $1,221,039.86 $1,221,039.86 Party of Ontario New Blue Party of $81,065.20 $81,065.20 $81,065.20 Ontario Ontario Party $53,181.05* $53,181.05 $53,181.05  Election Finances Act The Election Finances Act outlines rules for political entities related to registration, responsibilities, and key dates for required financial reports. Political entities that are regulated by the Election Finances Act include: Political Parties Constituency Associations Nomination Contestants Candidates Leadership Contestants and Third Party Advertisers.  Political Party Financing In the 2024 calendar year, a person – using their own funds - can contribute up to a limit of $3,375 to each registered political party. A person can contribute up to a combined limit of $3,375 to all constituency associations and nomination contestants for each registered political party. A person can contribute up to a limit of $3,375 to a candidates’ campaign. This $3,375 limit applies across all registered candidates of any one registered party and to all registered independent candidates (not endorsed by a registered political party). A registered candidate may make contributions to be used for the candidate’s own campaign, and out of the candidate’s own funds. These funds must not exceed $10,000 in total during the campaign period, combined with any period during which the candidate is registered.  Political Party Financing Leadership Contests A person can contribute up to a limit of $3,375 to each registered leadership contestant. A registered leadership contestant may take contributions up to $50,000 in total to be used during leadership contest. This contribution is to be used for the contestant’s own leadership campaign and should be out of the leadership contestant’s own funds.  Party Financing – Constituency Associations Constituency Associations The Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) shall determine an allowance payable to each eligible registered constituency association for each quarter of a calendar year. A quarterly allowance is assigned to each electoral district which is shared amongst associations based on the percentage of the valid votes their party candidate received in the last election. Quarterly Allowances are paid to registered constituency associations if their candidate received at least 2% of the valid votes cast. The payment of quarterly allowances ceases on December 31, 2024  Constituency Association Allowances 2024 For 2024, a quarterly amount of $4,879.17 is assigned to each electoral district which is shared amongst associations based on the percentage of the valid votes their party candidate received in the last election. To review what each constituency association received in each riding, see: https://www.elections.on.ca/en/search.html?q=constituency+associati on+allowances  Appendix Provincial Political Parties  Provincial Political Parties that have Formed Government in that Province* - Quebec – Union Nationale, Parti Quebecois, Coalition Avenir du Quebec (CAQ) - Alberta – United Farmers of Alberta, Social Credit, New Democratic Party, United Conservative Party - Saskatchewan – Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), New Democratic Party, Saskatchewan Party - Manitoba – United Farmers of Manitoba, Liberal-Progressives, New Democratic Party - Ontario – United Farmers of Ontario, New Democratic Party - Nova Scotia - New Democratic Party - Yukon territory - New Democratic Party, Yukon Party * In addition to Liberal and Conservative governments. FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL- TERRITORIAL RELATIONS Topic 6 – 8 October 2024  Comparative Intergovernmental Relations Vertical intergovernmentalism of shared jurisdiction and joint program financing between national and sub-national governments - response to constitutional inflexibility Horizontal intergovernmentalism of policy coordination and strategic negotiations - need for policy coordination between sub-national governments - strategic tool for negotiations with the national government  Comparative Intergovernmental Relations Forms of intergovernmental relations: - Multilateral – negotiations between several governments simultaneously - Bilateral – negotiations between two governments to the exclusion of all other governments - Unilateral – one government, usually the national government, acting on its own  Comparative Intergovernmental Relations Treaty Federalism sees federal political systems increasingly turning to sub-constitutional intergovernmental bargaining as a tool of efficient governance - intergovernmental treaties or accords - quasi-diplomatic character of intergovernmental relations; e.g. Richard Simeon’s Federal-Provincial Diplomacy  Intergovernmental Relations Since Confederation Post Confederation use of Lieutenant-Governors as representatives of the federal government - disallowance - reservation Bilateral meetings between one provincial government and the federal government and between one provincial government and another provincial government FPT conferences of the Prime Minister and the Premiers, i.e. First Ministers’ Conferences (FMC) and First Ministers’ Meetings (FMM) PT Premiers conferences, i.e. the Council of the Federation (COF), Council of Atlantic Premiers, and Western Premiers’ Conference  Intergovernmental Relations – Council of the Federation Premiers’ conferences began in 1887 Annual Premiers’ Conferences (APC) began in 1960 Council of the Federation (CoF) founded in 2003 CoF from the beginning had a founding agreement among provinces and territories, meets more frequently, rotates the chair, and observes consensus decision-making CoF is more institutionalized than were the APCs: - costs are shared among jurisdictions on a per capita basis - Steering Committee of Deputy Ministers - permanent secretariat CoF chair for the year sets the agenda, but every jurisdiction makes suggestions  Intergovernmental Relations – Council of the Federation Intergovernmental councils like the CoF have four main objectives: 1) influence the national agenda 2) protect sub-national jurisdictions 3) co-ordinate policy making 4) exchange information and best practices Premiers have worked on all these objectives, but have found the need for consensus a challenge Other forms of intergovernmental relations include ministerial councils, FPT and PT, including regional meetings, e.g. Western Finance Ministers Meetings Meetings of officials, including regional administrative agencies  Forms of Intergovernmental Relations Co-operative federalism: administrative approach most common in 1950s and 1960s Executive federalism: concentration and centralization of authority at the top Federal-provincial divisions within federal and Ontario line departments, the Privy Council Office, Cabinet Office, Prime Minister’s Office and the Premier’s Office Federal and provincial Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs  Current Relations at the Officials Level Federal-provincial divisions, branches and units within line departments and cabinet offices, e.g. intergovernmental relations unit in the department of health Quebec established Ministry of Federal Provincial Relations in 1961 - Ministry of International Relations established in 1984 Ontario established Federal-Provincial and Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat in 1965 – upgraded to a Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs in 1978 Intergovernmental affairs in Ontario is currently embedded in Cabinet Office reporting directly to the Premier Intergovernmental Relations An Example: Departments of Finance  Federal-Provincial-Territorial Departments of Finance Federal-Provincial-Territorial Provincial -Territorial First Ministers Meetings and Conferences Council of the Federation (Premiers’ Conferences) FPT Finance Ministers’ Meetings PT Finance Ministers’ Meetings Continuing Committee of PT Deputy Ministers of Finance Officials (CCO) Meetings Deputy Ministers  Federal-Provincial-Territorial Departments of Finance Fiscal Fiscal and Arrangements Taxation CPP Economic Committee Committee Committee Subcommittee (FAC) Transfers Subcommittee  Provincial-Local and Federal-Local Relations Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Ontario Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs Federal Ministry of State for Urban Affairs (MSUA) Infrastructure spending Immigrant settlement Indigenous peoples INTERGOVERNMENTAL FISCAL RELATIONS  Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations At the Time of Confederation In a new federation, an asymmetrical system of political representation will be accompanied by asymmetrical policy development and an asymmetrical distribution of fiscal resources. Many federations make use of progressive forms of taxation, direct spending by the central government, and intergovernmental grants that transfer resources from taxpayers in wealthy jurisdictions to those in poor jurisdictions - Ontario, Alberta and BC are all examples of wealthy jurisdictions in Canada.  Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations At the Time of Confederation In the 1860s, “many politicians from Atlantic Canada were concerned about their provincial governments’ fiscal health in a federation that the Province of Canada would dominate” (Mary Janigan, 2020) Tariffs had provided the bulk of colonial revenues, and their collection by the new federal government meant that all provincial governments would see their revenues reduced and some form of vertical fiscal redistribution was a likely outcome. Horizontal fiscal redistribution also would take place because Upper Canada would contribute more than its share of the country’s tariff revenues.  Comparative Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations Some federations, like the US, India, and the European Union, do relatively little in the way of inter-regional fiscal redistribution. - In the US, redistribution has been shown to benefit small states, at least in part because those smaller states are low maintenance, low-cost supporters of the party in office Other federations, like Germany, Australia and Canada, do a great deal. - Researchers have shown an inverse relationship between the size of the sub-national units and the transfer of fiscal resources.  Comparative Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations In parliamentary democracies like Canada, with highly disciplined political parties, malapportionment’s greatest impact is felt within the governing party’s caucus and government executive, rather than in the legislature itself. Small, less prosperous jurisdictions have a major stake in actively maintaining existing fiscal redistribution and expanding such redistribution wherever possible.  Canadian Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations Since Confederation Customs and excise tax revenues, debt allowances, annual grants, per capita grants, special grants at the time of Confederation Vertical fiscal imbalance Horizontal fiscal imbalance Conditional grants and the federal spending power Rowell-Sirois Commission Unemployment insurance  CONTINUUM OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL CONTROL Centralized Decentralized Program Conditional Direct Block Tax Spending Grants / Program Transfers Point or Shared Transfers Transfers Tax Cost and Trusts Expenditures Programs  Federal-Provincial Fiscal Relations Since World War II Federal-provincial agreements; opting out arrangements Equalization payments and Territorial Formula Financing (TFF) Section 36 of the Constitution Act of 1982 Canada Health Act’s five conditions for receiving federal funding Canada Assistance Plan (CAP), Established Programs Financing (EPF) Paul Martin Budget of 1995 Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) Canada Health Transfer (CHT) Canada Social Transfer (CST)  Equalization Payments Equalization was designed to provide less prosperous provincial governments with: - public services that are reasonably comparable to those in other provinces - reasonably comparable levels of taxation Horizontal redistribution is the explicit purpose of the Fiscal Equalization program, and it is usually received by only five or six provinces at a time, although not always the same provinces Each province’s fiscal capacity is determined and the ones below the per capita average are brought up to the average  Equalization Payments An important clause was added to the Constitution Act of 1982, section 36 and especially subsection 2. That clause committed the federal government to making equalization payments to the provinces and made - “fiscal equalization... an important enough principle to be considered an addition to...(Canada’s) shared civic culture—the glue that holds the Canadian political community, with its deep diversity, together. It provides a practical reason for the Quebecois to stay in Canada” (Peter Russell, 2017)  SEVEN PROVINCES RECEIVE MORE THAN $25 BILLION IN EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS IN 2024-25 (millions of dollars) Newfoundland and Labrador 218 Prince Edward Island 610 Nova Scotia 3,284 New Brunswick 2,897 Quebec 13,316 Ontario 576 Manitoba 4,352 History of Postsecondary Education, Social and Health Funding in Canada TRANSFERS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ONTARIO Canada Health Transfer Canada Social Transfer Equalization Payments Labour Market Development Agreement (LMDA) Social Housing Indian Welfare Services Agreement Job Fund Agreement Infrastructure Programs Bilingualism Development Labour Market Agreement for Persons with Disabilities Youth Criminal Justice Legal Aid Criminal Other  Federal-Provincial Tax Agreements Personal income tax agreements Corporate income tax agreements Harmonized Sales Taxes (HST)  Balance of Confederation Balance of Confederation is defined as the difference between federal government spending in a sub-national jurisdiction and revenues collected in that jurisdiction by the federal government Federal government raises more money in BC, Alberta and Ontario than it spends in those provinces In all other provinces and territories, the federal government spends more than it raises in taxes and from other revenues Ontario’s Premiers and Ministers of Finance have complained about their province’s treatment by the federal government, regardless of which political party is in office These issues have been raised by every Premier and Minister of Finance at least since the days of Bob Rae, in the early 1990s, including Mike Harris, Ernie Eves, Dalton McGuinty, Kathleen Wynne and Doug Ford Fair Share for Ontario is an issue that cuts across party lines  Fair Share for Other Provinces Ontario has not been alone in making these demands Alberta has been particularly vociferous. Premiers Jason Kenney, Danielle Smith and the United Conservative Party called for a referendum on the federal Equalization program Quebec politicians and academics have claimed that the province would be better off outside of Confederation. They claim that Quebec pays more to the federal government than they receive in federal spending Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Section 33  Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Section 33 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was proclaimed in 1982. It included Section 33, the Notwithstanding Clause. Section 33 allows Parliament or the legislature of a province to derogate from certain sections of the Charter, namely section 2 (fundamental freedoms), sections 7 to 14 (legal rights) and section 15 (equality rights). It does not apply to democratic rights (section 3 — the right to vote, or sections 4 and 5 — the sitting of the House of Commons or other Canadian legislatures), mobility rights (section 6) or language rights (sections 16 to 23).  Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Section 33 Once invoked, the notwithstanding clause prevents a court from declaring that legislation covered by a section 33 declaration is of no force or effect, despite any inconsistency in the legislation with the rights