1 UBC POLI 101 Canadian Politics What is Politics? What is Political Science? .

1

UBC POLI 101Canadian Politics

What is Politics? What is Political Science?

http://www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101

2

Outline of this Lecture

1. What is Politics? Why Study it?2. What does ‘Politics’ cover?3. What is Government?4. Social Science5. Social Scientific Terms & Concepts6. Political Science7. Canadian Political Science8. Approaches to Political Science – Non-Critical9. Approaches to Political Science –Critical10. Big Questions for Political Science

3

Politics, Government, and Law are amazing:– Millions of people, huge distances; differences of

values, religions, experiences, economic situations– Making decisions collectively that bind each other to

laws– Fundamentally, law reduces uncertainty: about

economic transactions, security, and now for health, income, etc.

– The power to make these decisions and enforce them is immenseSo… Who gets that power?

– By force, or by agreement (law)– Holding and turning over that power without

violence is a considerable accomplishment in such large, diverse societies

– Doing it democratically means all citizens decide, and the most preferred group (party) takes power

What is Politics? Why Study it?

What would happen if all governments in Canada

just got up and quit, and citizens believed that

the Constitution had no authority?

Yikes!

4

What does ‘Politics’ cover?

• Simply put: Everything• Governments regulate food, water, transportation, environment,

economy, marriage/divorce/child custody, education, communication…

• And they enforce all this by a monopoly on the legitimate use of force

• Around 40% of the economy – “Politics is about who gets what, when, and how” (Laswell)

– Politics is conflict (peaceful or violent) over the leadership, structure, and policies of government

• Or, in some places, over the most powerful force (military)

• But… Not quite everything– We have a liberal democracy, which implies that there is a

private sphere which politics (the State) can’t intrude on– But what is private?

Educating one’s children? Abortion? Marriage? Economic Dealings?

– The limits of politics are themselves political questions!

5

What is Government?

•Government is the term used to describe the institutions and procedures through which a territory and its people are ruled. We’ll study Canadian government.

•Different forms of government are defined by who governs, and how much government control is permitted.

•Forms of government defined by “who governs” include autocracy/monarchy (rule of all by one), oligarchy (rule of the few or elite), and democracy (rule of all by all).

•Forms of government defined by the degree of government control include constitutional, authoritarian, and totalitarian governments.

•Canada has a liberal-democratic constitutional monarchy

•How do we understand government and politics?•A: We use social scientific techniques

6

Logistics / Announcements

• Tutorials are on. You should be going. Next week, they will be focussed on the reading and lectures from THIS week.

• The course now has a coursepack of 8 required readings. You should by it at the bookstore(±$17)– there may still be a few web readings in addition

• More information on papers is now on the website.– let’s have a look

• Tuesday, Jan. 11 from noon-1pm in the Meekinson Arts Space (Buch D140)…Vancouver Councillor Peter Ladner speaking on“What’s Happening in Vancouver Civic Politics”

• Education in the Middle East

7

Social Science

• Social science is an attempt to understand human behaviour by describing regularities in that behaviour, so that behaviour can be predicted. And all of that behaviour takes place in society - interpersonally.– economics, political science, sociology, parts of

psychology, human anthropology

• Standards and goals differ from those of the natural sciences and of the humanities

8

Social Scientific Terms & Concepts

• Theory is the key element of the social scientific enterprise: “a theory is a statement linking specific instances to broader principles.” A story without proper names.

• Empirical statements – address the way things are; descriptive. These are necessary before theory.

• Normative statements – address the way things should be, judgmental. (relating to “norms” or expectations)

• Theories provide explanation and prediction – but they need to be tested if we’re going to trust

them to predict behaviour

9

Political Science

• Political science: study of the political world, its institutions and behavior, in a systematic way – description, explanation, analysis, sometimes prediction.

Particular emphasis on the state and individual interaction with the state.

• Political science is also analysis and argument about the values, principles, and identities that form the basis for much of political behaviour and the policies of governments (e.g. national identity & unity)

• At this point, Political Science doesn’t have overarching theories that have great success at prediction, as in the natural sciences. But understanding of behaviour and institutions has grown.– e.g: cooperation increases when likelihood of future

interaction increases

10

Canadian Political Science

• Like other ‘domestic’ political science• Goal is to understand, explain, and predict, and

sometimes criticize how Canadian politics and government work.

• Preoccupation with unity: Quebec and national identity, regional grievances, political parties as ‘brokers’ keeping the country together, the Charter of Rights as a unifying symbol, multiculturalism, etc.

• But also study of citizen behaviour, party organization, elections, media, policy formation, policy effectiveness, political economy, foreign policy, equality and inequality, etc.

13

Big Questions for Political Science

• Which political institutions best contribute to happiness, prosperity, equality, individual development, community cohesion?

• Can political equality coexist with economic inequality? Is equal citizenship possible?

• Does democracy work better if citizens are informed, participate in politics, and debate collective decisions in a rational, critical way?

• Is the structure of the state inevitably hierarchical? Is that good because it enhances accountability or bad because it reduces popular input into decisions?

• How much cultural diversity is optimal in a political community? How much is enough to break up the community?

14


The Development of CanadaWhat is the Canadian Political Community?


15

Coursepack and Assignments

• Sorry about not telling you that the coursepack will be ready on Friday or Monday

• Please try to get it and read the Reference Re: Secession of Quebec– point is about constitutions and democracy,

not so much about Quebec• Another feature of the papers you write:

you are required to find one other source relevant to your topic– must be an appropriate academic source– citation style is not important; what is important is

to avoid plagiarism, so read the department’s statement on plagiarism, which is in the coursepack

16

Canada: Size, Population, Geography• Canada is BIG: but why does it matter?

– Diverse regional communities with regional attachments• regional patterns of settlement by different groups• Canada is BIG in the sense that it is DIVERSE

– Understanding of other regions limited by distance– Economy is regionalized so policy has regional effects– This week’s reading!

• Canada is small: but why does it matter?– USA next door, 10X our population– Only ½% of world pop. (1 in 200 people are Canadian!)– Much ‘uninhabited’ land, controversy over use

• Canada is medium-sized: but why does it matter?– Some economies of scale, but not as much as USA– Economy – price-takers and trade-takers dependency– Foreign policy – we have to ‘fit in’, play ‘honest broker’– Immigration – obligation(?) to accept immigration?

17

Indigenous Peoples, European Settlement

• Before European contact, over 50 distinct cultures/languages with well-defined territory. The result of gradual movement from Asia between 20,000 and 1,500 years ago.

• Early contact was genuinely between nations, but European values denigrated indigenous, non-Christian cultures.

• British Royal Proclamation (1763) recognized land rights• First French, then English settlement pushed westward.

Displacement of aboriginal peoples became extensive in the early 1800s.

• Massive depopulation, mainly through disease: aboriginal population fell from 500,000 to 140,000

• Very uneven coverage of treaties between the Cdn Gov’t and Indian Nations. Most negotiated unfairly.

18

Quebec Act (1774), Constitutional Act (1791), 4/5 Colonies

• After the British Conquest of Canada, the Quebec Act solidified the French presence in Canada – recognized civil law, Catholic church, signeurial landholding

• But NO representative assembly, unlike other colonies• 1791, two colonies: Upper & Lower Canada

Representative Assemblies, but no power • NO RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT

– The government is responsible to the people…If the people don’t like it, they can remove the government

• Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and PEI separate colonies• Influx of Loyalists from American colonies• 1837 rebellions against lack of responsible, popular

gov’t• Lord Durham’s Report (1838):

– Assimilation of French population– Re-unification of the Canadas – one assembly– Responsible government (came slowly – 1848)

19

Confederation - Why

• Economic Reasons: Britain cancelled preferential access and Americans cancelled reciprocity (free trade), so a need for an ‘intercolonial’ market and therefore an intercolonial railway

• Political Reasons: Union of Canadas = stalemate: – Two parties: reformers and conservatives– Two groups: French and English (Lower & Upper)

• Military Reasons:– Threat of US annexation after US civil war– Worry about western border (BC gold rush)– Britain didn’t have money to defend Canada

20

Confederation - What

• British North America (BNA) Act (1867)• Canada West (Ont.), Canada East (Quebec), Nova

Scotia, New Brunswick (PEI & NF rejected it)• Defined governmental structures:

– “with a Constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom”

– House of Commons & Senate– Judicial system (courts)– “Peace, Order, and Good Government” (POGG)– Powers of taxation– Elections and qualifications of citizenship– BUT… Federal arrangement: national & provincial

gov’ts

21

That was then, this is now…

• Political culture is the sum of all values, beliefs, attitudes, and orientations of a society

• It is more than “public opinion”– The frame that constrains political discourse and action– The norms and mores of the society– It is what is understood as the values of a society

produced through the interaction between political parties, the mass media, civil society, and mass opinion, mediated by a community’s history & self-understanding

– Assumptions, often unconscious, that guide political life – It is enduring, stable and cross-generational

• It does help us explain national differences• And it helps us predict broad patterns of political outcomes• Pol Culture changes through replacement, conversion, new

experiences

What is political culture? Why is it important?

22

Canadian Political Culture: Historical Basis

• Counter-revolutionary society• Anti-democratic/ anti-populist / elitist• Economically dependent (UK, then US)• Reliant on collective provision of well-being: a “Tory Touch”• National projects important to national political & economic

development• No “one unified national and cultural tradition” –French/English

divide etc.

• Patterns of settlement: – French Catholics to Quebec– United Empire Loyalists coming north from American Revolution– Americans in Alberta– working class Brits (to Manit and Sask) with roots in Labour– Southern/Eastern European immigration to Prairies then cities– Later immigration from Caribbean, East Asia, South Asia mostly

to big cities

• Is any of this still relevant? Differences from the USA due to history?

23

Regime Principles: Liberty and Equality

• Textbook calls these Canada’s “regime principles”• Most political theory/philosophy thesedays involves

debate over the relative weight of these two values in cases where liberty and equality clash

• For example: what the leaders were talking about:– same-sex marriage– child pornography– abortion

• How do we make public decisions on these matters?– leave it to people to do what they want– parliament (representatives) make laws– Courts say what laws are in line with the Constitution –

particularly the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

25

Important Facts - Immigration

26

Employment in Canada

27


Foundational Principles of the Canadian Constitution


28

Announcements

• This weeks’ tutorials are on Canada’s regime principles– what does ‘democracy’ mean?

• VERY useful website: http://polisci.nelson.com/canpol.html

• New week inserted for Feb 7, called…National Unity and Mega-Constitutional Politics

29

What are these guys fighting over?

• Not just what government should do• Instead: which part of government should do

what• And: which part makes the final decision

30

Q: What is Canada? What are its Political Institutions?

A: A Constitutional Liberal DemocracyThe Canadian political system is defined by the

Constitution

So… What is a Constitution?• The Master Institution

– gives form (constitutes) the component instutions of government

• A set of rules and norms that define:– the powers legitimately exercised by political authorities– and the legitimate means for determining who those authorities

are

• The “supreme law” that provides the basis for the making, enforcement, & adjudication of regular law.And which cannot be changed as easily as regular law.

31

What do Constitutions look like?

• Written versus Unwritten– US Constitution was drawn up at a Constitutional Convention

and changed by formal Amendments– British Constitution is mainly unwritten:

it is a set of laws and conventions– Canada’s is now (post 1982) in between!

• Constitutions Define:– Legislative branch (law-making / approval), – Executive branch (enaction and enforcement of law)– Judical branch (interpretation and adjudication of law)– Federal division of powers– Term of legislative office (when elections must be held)– Limits of Government: Bill of Rights (Canadian Charter)– Other stuff! (e.g. Canada has provisions on religious education)

• Contains an amendment formula for the constitution itself

• Often a statement of values the community endorses: “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law” (texbook p. 250)

32

Logistics / Announcements

I apologize for the confusion and changes to deadlines, etc.I have updated information on the website now 1) Changes to paper due dates: week of Feb 7th for first one

submit to turn-it-in AND paper copy to TA in tutorial

2) The turn-it-in course ID is 1234743, password is Canada3) TA office hours are listed on the tutorials page4) The schedule has been updated to show topics for all

weeks5) lecture notes for last week AND this week are up

Plus, the coursepack is available. It's about $15.

33

Example: Charlottetown Accord text on VALUESThis DIDN’T make it into the Constitution!

(1) The Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the following characteristics:(a) Canada is a democracy committed to a parliamentary and federal

system of government and to the rule of law;(b) the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, being the first peoples to govern

this land, have the right to promote their languages, cultures and traditions and to ensure the integrity of their societies, and their governments constitute one of the three orders of government in Canada;

(c) Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society, which includes a French-speaking majority, a unique culture and a civil law tradition;

(d) Canadians and their governments are committed to the vitality and development of official language minority communities throughout Canada;

(e) Canadians are committed to racial and ethnic equality in a society that includes citizens from many lands who have contributed, continue to contribute, to the building of a strong Canada that reflects its cultural and racial diversity;

(f) Canadians are committed to a respect for individual and collective human rights and freedoms of all people;

(g) Canadians are committed to the equality of female and male persons; and

(h) Canadians confirm the principal of the equality of the provinces at the same time as recognizing their diverse characteristics.

(2) The role of the legislature and government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct society of Quebec is affirmed.

35

Elements of the Canadian Political SystemThe TOTAL Constitution: Written and Unwritten

“A Richer Conception of Democracy”

The Crown (the Head of State) Federalism Representative Democracy Rule of Law Supremacy of the Legislature / Responsible

Gov’t Rights and Freedoms Independent Judiciary / Judicial Review Amending Formula

36

Rule of Law

• What is the opposite of the rule of law? – The arbitrary decisions of a person or group of persons– Decisions about rules after the fact

• So the Rule of Law involves “Procedural Justice”• Power exercised according to rules• But… law approved by the legislature can’t do everything

– For example, it can’t make the determination of whether a person has been trying to find a job while receiving employment insurance

– Or whether a business is complying with employment standards

• Real people are authorized by law to make regulations, determine procedures, make case-by-case decisions. In Canada: Ministers of the Crown.– e.g. How much alcohol in blood is safe for driving– whether the value of a bottle of wine donated to charity is reasonable

• So the “rule of law” also means that these decisions, too,are to be done equally, fairly, with evidence, and with procedures for appeal

37

The Crown

• Canada is a constitutional monarchy• The Queen is the Head of State

– the ultimate authority to choose who exercises power• The collective power of the political community is

represented in The Crown– So we have Governor General, Crown Attorneys, Crown

Land, Royal Commissions, Throne Speech, etc.• The power of the Crown has to be directed by some

set of people: The Queen’s Privy Council for Canada(and the provinces’ Privy Councils)

• In practice this means the Prime Minister & Cabinet• The independent judiciary is also part of the Crown

38

Federalism

• Union of four separate colonies• Two governments, each sovereign in its own

sphere• Constitution defines their powers:

– Federal Government in Sec. 91 of the BNA Act– Provincial Governments in Sec. 92– ‘residual power’ held by the federal government

• Courts interpret the division of powers and can invalidate laws that violate it

• Strong potential to define political conflict as national vs. provincial governments

39

Representative Democracy

• Popular Sovereignty – The People Rule• Their voice is through a representative• Laws made in/by a representative assembly

– in Parliament, a limited number of citizens speak for all

• Representation based on geography– Members of Parliament represent people in a place

• Political Equality: One Person, One Vote • MPs are ‘answerable’ to their constituents

In the Parliament of Canada, MPs represent between 30,000 and 125,000 people

In the provinces the population of electoral constituencies can be as low as 3,000

40

Rights

• The Constitution also contains the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

• So there is a lot the government can’t do– Democratic rights– Legal Rights– Mobility Rights– Aboriginal Rights– Equality Rights– Lauguage Rights

• But the government can do what it wants, anyway! By invoking the “notwithstanding” clause of the very same Charter (sec. 33)– but the political cost of this may be too high

41

Separate Judiciary / Judicial Review

• The BNA Act establishes a judicial system by authorizing the establishment of courts and the appointment of judges

• Judges are technically removable by the legislature, but it is a Constitutional convention that this only be used in extreme cases of misconduct

• So the judiciary is independent, even though appointments are under the full control of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

• The Charter empowers judges to enforce it. But judges have gone further than their explicit powers

42

Amending Formula

• A way to change this so-called “supreme law”– it has to be at least somewhat flexible to respond to

changing circumstances and changing preferences

• Ours is federal – it involves the consent of provinces

• Consensus seems natural, but this gives veto power to sometimes very small players (PEI, pop. 130,000)

• Canada’s General Formula:7 provinces with at least 50% of Cdn population

• TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT IN CANADA– reason it took so long to get the Constitution patriated– so much subtlety: more than 5 different formulas!

43

Amending Formula: Example

• Meech Lake agreement to recognize Quebec failed because it wanted to change the amending formula– Quebec wanted ‘distinct society’ – But it also wanted veto power over (section 42):

• (a) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;

• (b) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;

• (c) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;

• (d) subject to paragraph 41(d), the Supreme Court of Canada; • (e) the extension of existing provinces into the territories; and • (f) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of

new provinces;

• So that meant the Meech Lake agreement needed UNANIMOUS CONSENT FROM ALL PROVINCES

• That’s where it met it’s downfall

44

Supremacy of Legislature / Responsible Gov’t

• The legislatures can make any law they choose• … But that means they are responsible for

everything government does• In practice, this means the members of the

governing political party• and especially the Prime Minister and Cabinet,

who are collectively responsible to the legislature

• Cabinet Ministers are responsible for the actions of everyone in their department

POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term Dr. Fred Cutler www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101

45

Amending Formula

• A way to change this so-called “supreme law”– it has to be at least somewhat flexible to respond to

changing circumstances and changing preferences– trade-off is flexibility versus unanimity/consensus

• Ours is federal – it involves the consent of provinces• Consensus seems natural, but this gives veto power

to sometimes very small players (PEI, pop. 130,000)

• So… Canada’s General Formula:7 provinces with at least 50% of Cdn population

• TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT IN CANADA– one reason it took so long to get the Constitution patriated– so much subtlety: more than 5 different formulas!


46

Amending Formula: Example• Meech Lake agreement to recognize Quebec failed

because it wanted to change the amending formula– Quebec wanted ‘distinct society’ – But it also wanted veto power over (section 42):

• (a) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;

• (b) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;

• (c) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;

• (d) subject to paragraph 41(d), the Supreme Court of Canada; • (e) the extension of existing provinces into the territories; and • (f) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of

new provinces;

• So that meant the Meech Lake agreement needed UNANIMOUS CONSENT FROM ALL PROVINCES

• That’s where it met it’s downfall


47


Responsible Government

“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

James Madison, 1788



48

Constitutional Principle:Responsible Gov’t / Supremacy of Legislature

• The legislatures can make any law they choose• But that means they are responsible for everything government

does or does not do• But how can we hold 308 separate people responsible?• We don’t. Instead, we select a government from these 308

– the US does not have a government in the same sense! More later.

• Government in practice means the members of the governing political party– but even that’s too many separate people

• So the government is the Queen’s Privy Council: the Cabinet and especially the Prime Minister

• It’s these characters who are collectively responsible to the legislature

• Cabinet Ministers are individually responsible for the actions of everyone in their department – in a more legal sense


49

Canada’s ‘Fusion of Powers’

• Theoretically, executive and legislative branches are distinct

• Executive: power to propose and then implement and enforce law

• Legislative: power to accept (pass), change (amend), or reject laws proposed by the executive– and to oversee what the executive does as it implements

lawse.g. US system and the Auditor General of Canada

• In Canada:– the executive is the Cabinet (Queen’s Privy Council), – the legislative is the House of Commons AND Senate

• THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE!!! – or, at least, the members of the executive are drawn from

the legislature


50

Canada’s ‘Fusion of Powers’ – Cabinet in Parliament

• In Canada’s Westminster System, the executive (Cabinet) is always part of the legislative – it is selected from the legislature by the Crown

• The identity of the Cabinet is determined by the legislative: Cabinet is responsible to the Members of Parliament– technically, if MPs don’t like the Cabinet, they can throw

them out– but really the other way around: PM gets to pick Cabinet

Ministers because…

• In practice, the Prime Minister is the leader of the party getting the most seats. The Governor General “asks him/her to form a government”


51

Announcements

• Reading for this week is on the website– it focusses on accountability of Ministers and Public Servants

• 4 paper topics up• 1st paper due week of Feb 7th

Can be on either the Constitution questions or the Responsible Government questions


52

Paper Guidelines

• Answer the question, but in a balanced way:– Take a position, but consider the other side– Or, just take a compromise position!

• The real content, the way you should answer, should be exploring and analyzing the:– concepts involved – behaviour of the actors involved (parties, individuals, governments,

civil servants, citizens, non-governmental organizations, interest groups, etc.)

– changes to the system and its institutions that would alter behaviour and thus alter the results or consequences of that behaviour

– the desirability of certain goals and values

• Define your terms clearly, but don’t waste a whole lot of space on this

• Don’t waste a page on intro and a page on conclusion– write the paper as an answer to the question and then write a one-

paragraph intro and one-paragraph conclusion when you’re done!

• Look at the style in section 3.7 of the texbook… Try to write like that, except with a bit more of an argument/answer


53

Example:

• Question: Is the Prime Minister too powerful? What can be done about it?Answer:… Within the federal government, the PM defines the agenda and ultimately makes the important policy decisions. The fact that he/she controls appointments in his/her party means that other members of the governing party will try to please the PM, keeping their mouths shut if they disagree…

The federal system in Canada, however, provides a check against the power of the Prime Minister. …


54

Contrast with the USA: Separation of Powers

• The Americans wanted to keep the executive and legislature from getting together and using their combined power to oppress the people

• So they set them up in competition with one another• President directly elected; bureaucracy under his

thumb• Congress is elected independently• They have to agree for laws to be passed• The legislature (Congress) then has to monitor the

bureaucracy to make sure that it enforces those laws– EPA example

• Responsibility is harder to pin on either – parties make this a lot easier,

but not if there’s divided government


55

The Logic of Responsible Government: Delegation and Accountability

1. We need to delegate decision-making and enforcement to a small group (law-makers, law-enforcers)

2. We want that group to always do what we would do if we were all making the decision

3. So we must make it in their self-interest to do what we would do (what we want done) – we create incentives for them

4. First, we make it worth their while to do it (income)5. Then we hold them accountable:

We threaten to take their power away if they 1. do stuff in their interest rather than in our interest2. or let the people the get to do the work (civil servants) get out of

hand1. doing what they themselves prefer2. or just “shirking” – not doing their jobs, performing services we pay for

6. We delegate this power to our representatives7. a. Our representatives can stop them before they do that stuff

b. Our representatives can remove them afterwards 8. If our representatives don’t do this for us, we can remove the

representatives themselves!


56

Diagram of Delegation and Accountability

• We could bend this into a circle• The key here is information

– how much effort should/can each one spend in monitoring the people it is supposed to monitor

– might each one try to keep real information about its activities away from the authorities that are supposed to monitor it

– might they all decide to blur the responsibility so they can all get away with things


57

Example: APEC Demonstrations HERE at UBC!• Police used too much force against protestors• Who is responsible? Who do we punish?

– RCMP individuals– Minister responsible: Solicitor General– Prime Minister – Political apointees in the Prime Minister’s Office– Later? Our representatives for not watching the PM or the

minister closely enough?

• Problems at each step with information and identities


58

In 1991 Jean Chretien told the Commons: "I would like to tell the people of Canada that there will be one thing: when we form a government, that every one Minister in the Cabinet that I will be presiding; will have to take the full responsibility of what's going on in his office. And if there's some bungling in the department, nobody will be singled out, but the Minister will have to take the responsibility. "And if there are errors, some might be moved. But the people who cannot defend themselves [civil servants] will not be singled out, hanging out there in front of the public. It is shameful. It is an indignity that we have not seen in Canada since a long time and it's why I stood today. Because if the system of Ministerial responsibility and integrity is not respected; if Ministers cannot anymore go home and look at themselves in the mirror and say do I have the trust of my employees; do I have the trust of the people of Canada; if they cannot do that because they want to keep their little jobs, people will never -- have never anymore confidence in public service in Canada.“

"I think one of the major changes over the last decade or more has been the extent to which basically Prime Minister Chretien has got contempt for parliament itself and for the parliamentary committees," Robinson says. "At least Mulroney -- and I never thought I'd say this -- but at least Mulroney understood and respected the fact that we had a role, as members of parliament; as opposition members of parliament and government members of parliament, to try and get at the truth.“ – Svend Robinson, NDP MP for Burnaby Douglas

59

UBC POLI 101The Government of Canada

The Federal System(not Constitutional Mega-Politics)


60

Federalism

• Separate “orders of government” defined by the Constitution

• But not Confederalism: where the higher-level assembly is made up of representatives of governments not representatives of the people– US Senate, originally

• Division of Powers - Constitutionalized• Neither can change this unilaterally• Disputes go to a third party – the Supreme

Court • General support in the political culture for the

existence of multiple levels of government …

61

Canadians Like Co-operation – But They’re Confused

“Thinking about how governments make decisions, which of the following do you think would be best for Canada: One, the federal government should have the final say on some things, the provincial governments on others, and they should both stay out of each other's way; or two, both levels of government should work most things out together.” Final Say Work Together DK N BC 13% 86% 1% 325 Alberta 17% 82% 1% 327 Man/Sask 11% 88% 1% 450 Ontario 17% 81% 2% 403 Quebec 30% 65% 4% 1001 Atlantic 6% 93% 1% 434

BC AB Total Strongly Agree 28.2% 26.9% 27.6% Somewhat Agree 49.8% 45.8% 47.9% Somewhat Disagree 11.6% 16.5% 13.9% Strongly Disagree 2.9% 4.3% 3.5% Don't Know 7.5% 6.6% 7.1%

“It is often difficult to figure out which level of government is responsible for what”

N 241 212 453

62

Why Federalism? (but Vernon reading doesn’t buy them!)

• Prevention of tyranny– Division of sovereignty – tempers Parliamentary Supremacy

– “Multiplication of factions” – Madison

• Efficiency– Information about citizens’ preferences more reliable– Service delivery more cost-effective– Representation closer to the people (more democratic)– Citizens shop for ‘bundles of services’

• Geographical variation in preferences– In Canada: the accomodation of ethno-cultural

difference

• Recruitment of leaders through the levels of gov’t• Policy Experimentation / Borrowing Ideas &

Success

63

Why NOT Federalism?

• Inequality– different revenue bases mean different levels of service– equalization is inefficient

• Confusion undermines responsible government – voters may not be able to hold governments accountable– legislatures may not be able to hold Cabinets accountable

• Destructive competition (Race to the Bottom)– A bidding war to attract industry undermines revenue

• Entrenchment / exacerbation of geographical conflict Diversion from more important concerns

• Cost– Duplication / Overlap– Lack of economies of scale

64

Intrastate (within) and Interstate (between) Federalism

• Intrastate Federalism: The representation of the units of the federation within the national government (e.g. US Senate – 2 Senators from each State)– Constitution ensures Provincial Representation in Senate and House

of Commons– Convention of regional balance in Cabinet– Can be interpreted in centralist or decentralist ways– Senate Reform in Canada?

• Interstate Federalism:Interactions between Federal and Provincial gov’ts– Joint programs– Bureaucratic linkages and consultations– Integration of Tax system– First Ministers’ Conferences

• Interstate federalism functions more smoothly, or there is simply less need for it, if intrastate mechanisms are legitimate and effective.

65

Features of Modern Canadian Federalism• Executive Federalism: Intergovernmentalism

– First Ministers’ Conferences (FMCs): e.g. Health Care Aug. 2004– Ministers’ Meetings, Premiers’ Meetings: multi or bi-lateral– over 500 semi-permanent ‘working groups’ of officials

• Equalization Payments (Constitutionally Guaranteed)PART III EQUALIZATION AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES 36. (1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or

of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to

(a) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians; (b) furthering the economic development to reduce disparity in

opportunities; and (c) providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all

Canadians. (2) Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to

the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.(19)

• Block Grants (federal $ to provinces)– replace federal spending power– lets provinces set relative priority of health, educ, welfare

66

Development of Canadian Federalism 1 – Confederation +

• Reasons for Federalism in 1867:– Deadlock of United Canada’s – “Double Majority” stalemate– Quebec – desire for constitutional guarantee of control over

language, education, culture, civil law, religion– Martimes – wanted self-government, feeling of distinct

political culture, different economic interests– Logistics – Communication/Transportation slow & costly

• promise to build railroad in constitution

• But… the shadow of US Civil War– So strong central government with residual power,

disallowance, primary power to tax

• The objective was independent governments, able to function on their own in ‘watertight compartments’ – “we have avoided all conflict of jurisdiction and authority”

– Sir John A. Macdonald

67

Constitutional Division of Powers

Federal Provincial Concurrent

Trade and CommerceCriminal LawRaising of RevenuePostal ServiceCensus / StatisticsDefenceShipping, FisheriesIndians, and lands reserved for the Indians

Residual Power

Crown Land (Natural Resources)Hospitals, CharitiesMunicipal InstitutionsEducation“Property and Civil Rights within the Province”“Generally all matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province”

AgricultureImmigration

Residual Power, s. 91: “to make laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces”

68

Quasi-Federalism?

• Remember, federalism is a situation where neither government can infringe on the other’s powers

• But in Canada, at the beginning…– Paramountcy – federal gov’t laws stand in case of

conflict– Reservation and Disallowance– Residual Power of the federal government– Declaratory Power (public works for national benefit)– Unequal power of taxation Federal Spending Power – Federal appointment of judges

• First PM John A. Macdonald thought of the provinces as colonies

69

Development of Canadian Federalism 2 – to 1949

• Post-1867 Empowerment of Provinces– Provinces’ Rights, Strong Premiers – Compact Theory– Judicial decisions undermined residual power

• Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) in Britain• Limited federal powers to those enumerated in s.91• POGG limited to matters not covered in s. 91&92 (Local Prohibition case

- 1896) and to an “emergency power” (Fort Frances case - 1922)• Generous interpretation of provincial “property and civil rights” and “all

matters of a merely local or private nature in the prov”; with a limited interpretation of federal “trade and commerce” power (unlike USA)

• Swing back to centralization, but against JCPC resistance– WWI – federal War Measures Act, temporary centraliztion– Depression: JCPC says not an emergency, so POGG can’t justify

federal ‘New Deal’ social programs: welfare, unemployment insurance, pensions, etc.

– WWII intervenes and provides the emergency the federal government needs, as well as an economic solution

• Quebec opts-out of Canada Pension Plan and Tax Sharing– start of ‘asymmetrical federalism’

70

Development of Canadian Federalism 3 – Post-War

• Centralization: – 1940 amendment adding unemployment insurance to fed.– 1949 Elimination of Appeals to the JCPC in Britain– Growth of the Spending Power – Shared Cost Programs

• Problems with Shared Cost Programs: – undermines provincial independence– Encourages spending– Reduces accountability

– Growth of both levels of government, so less conflict– Tax sharing, tax ‘rental’

• But… Equalization allowed provinces to provide similar services• Co-operative federalism: so many problems and opportunities

were new and not provided for in the constitution – so negotiation became the rule– Intergovernmental Relations are a key feature of Canada

(1000 committees, 500 federal-provincial programs)• Illustration: Post-Secondary Funding

– Provincial: Operating grants, salaries, scholarships– Federal: Block funding for education, research funds, scholarships

• As governments stopped growing, conflict increased

71

Current Canadian Federalism

• Federal cuts– Diminishing federal role and use of spending

power• Provinces can be more aggressive against the fed gov• Federal gov’t less able to enforce national standards

• SUFA – The Social Union Framework Agreement (1999)

– Feds agree to get provincial consent for new programs– Reduce barriers to mobility and equality – no residence

requirements– Collaborative policy development and data collection – Enhance accountability by identifying sources of funding– Funding predictability

72

Announcements

• Next week’s readings up on the website Schedule

73

Case Study: Health Care

• Universal Health Care (actually Medical Insurance) emerges from federal experimentation: Sask 1960 Fed 1962-72

• Federal government uses spending power to do it and this is still the way they enforce national standards

• Canada Health Act (1984) clarifies this: • Federal contribution was 50%, but declined dramatically• Problem of one level funding; other level managing• So 2004 Election Campaign Promise by Liberal PM Paul

Martin: First Ministers Meeting televised for all to see1. Lead-up2. Initial Moves3. Private Talks4. Deal

74

Consequences of Federalism

• Cairns: Solidifies provincial societies and encourages provincial politicians to play to provincial identitiesso… Federal Institutions create Federal Societies!– federal competition crowds out other conflicts

• Larger Government?– Competition for citizen satisfaction leads both to

compete or cooperate to deliver more programs than are wanted

• Smaller Government?– Race to the bottom – competition for investment


75


Mega(?)-Constitutional Politics: In Search of UnityQuebec Nationalism, Aboriginal Self-Determination,

RegionalismAll the usual Canadian preoccupations!



76

Background to Mega-Constitutional Politics• Nationalism: Links membership in a cultural or ethnic

community to the legitimate existence, recognition, and independence of a political community

• Can Canadians “consent to form a single people”?• Canadian Nationalism? Weak?

– British / Imperial Connection – English Canada was British!– Development of Provincial identities – dual fed & prov

identities– Pull of / Push against the USA – defining ourseves in

opposition to US

• Competing Identities:– Quebec Nationalism– Aboriginal Nations– Provincial Communities / Regionalism


77

Context: Repatriation of the Constitution• Bringing the constitution back to Canada began a

process of mega-constitutional politics– re-fashioning, re-imagination of the political community

• So the question is defining the nation and putting that into practice through the constitution: Russell asks: “Can Canadians become a sovereign people”

• Canada begins to tackle this question as the Quiet Revolution develops in Quebec (around 1960)

• Initially involves provinces – especially Quebec • But expands in the late 1970s to include

– aboriginal people, – women’s groups, – ethnic/multicultural associations:

• Everyone wants a say in re-defining the political community

As they should!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


78

Visions of Canada

Grounding ‘visions’ of the community provide stories that justify and legitimize different constitutional outcomes:

1. Two Nations – French and English (non-territorial)– Quebec and Rest of Canada

2. Equal Provinces (confederation)– Push for intrastate federalism – Senate Reform– And restriction of federal spending power– Some opposition to Charter because decisions apply nationally

3. Three Nations– Aboriginal peoples as founding nations– Requires a “third order of government”

4. Multiculturalist– Founding contributions of many ethno-cultural groups, none

superior

5. Individualist – Community of Equal Individuals– All equal members of the political community – no ‘group rights’


79

Society and Nationalism in Quebec

• French (Catholic) society in Quebec is 400+ years old• Politics a compromise between the Catholic Church,

English Economic Interests, and a minimal Quebec State… lasted until the 1950s!

• Lots of Grievances:– Riel Rebellion(s) – symbol of Protestant-Catholic conflict – Manitoba Schools Question – provincial rights vs. guarantees of

minority language education– Conscription Crises – Quebecois didn’t want to fight Britain’s

wars– Federal government and civil service English dominated– Federal incursions into provincial jurisdiction

• Most Québecois see their community as a ‘people’, distinct from France and English Canada– Desire for la survivance of a distinct, french-speaking community– So… What is the best means to preserve French language &

culture?– So it’s a small step to a ‘nation’, with a right of self-

determination


80

The Quiet Revolution and the Two Nations Vision

• Quebec had fought the federal government since the election of Maurice Duplessis’ Union Nationale in 1936– But this was to resist involvement of the state in general

• The Quiet Revolution meant…– Acceptance of government programs, coupled with a desire for made-

in-Quebec policies, led to Quebec opting out of federal programs (CPP, univ. grants, etc.) that other provinces accepted

– Professionalization of Quebec civil service, convincing many that they had the ability to operate the full machinery of government

• Constitutional result was a push for changes to the constitution giving Quebec expanded powers (not “power”!)

Partly Practical, Partly About National Recognition• 1st Constitutional try (1964): Failure of Fulton-Favreau

constitutional amending formula because it would make changes more difficult– Quebec veto to centralization; but ROC veto to decentralization– No movement on real ASYMMETRY for Quebec


81

October Crisis and the rise of the Parti Québecois

• Seemingly no interest in Rest of Canada (ROC) for giving recognition through asymmetrical federalism– Different powers for different units of the federation (provinces)

• 1960s… Clashes over language in schools where Quebecois and recent European immigrants send their children

• October Crisis (1970):– Emergence of radical Front de Libération du Québec (FLQ)– Kidnapping and murder of Cabinet MinisterQuebec asks Federal

government to invoke War Measures Act– In retrospect, it was an over-reaction. Bad info on size of threat.

• Sentiment channeled into Parti Québecois – Inherits nationalism of Union Nationale

• PQ victory in 1976 – promise of referendum on SECESSION– PQ in gov’t: Bill 101 – Charte de la langue francaise


82

Federal (Liberal Party) Responses

& the 1980 Referendum• Pearson (1960s)– Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission– Three Wise Men (incl. Trudeau) brought into Cabinet

• Trudeau (1970s)– Official Languages Act– Victoria Charter: 2nd try fails – again Quebec pulls out

• Not enough to stop the rise of the PQ or a referendumThe Referendum Question: The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new arrangement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this arrangement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, administer its taxes and establish relations abroad-in other words, sovereignty-and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; no change in the political status resulting from these negotiations will be effected without approval by the people through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?

• But perhaps enough to prevent a referendum victory in 1980 It lost 60% to 40%

• Trudeau promises renewal of the federal system


83

What does Quebec Want? (Is it reasonable?)• Minimum ‘Needs’ (e.g. Bourassa’s Liberals in 1986 or Gil

Remillard’s speech to lawyers at Whistler)1. Veto over Constitutional changes affecting Quebec2. Reduction of federal involvement in provincial jurisdictions3. Recognition in Constitution/Charter that Quebec is a ‘distinct society’ 4. Participation in nomination of Supreme Court justices (min. 3)5. power on immigration, labour training, culture (grants)6. Constitutional guarantee of compensation for opting out of federal

shared-cost programs and mounting a provincial program instead

• Maximum ‘Wants’– Much bigger list of powers: unemployment insurance, taxation,

environment, r & d, culture…– But… economic union, shared currency, shared defence, etc.– And, participation in the very limited national government

• Reasonable? Depends on the likely effects! – e.g. ‘distinct society’ might permit Quebec to protect and promote

the language, but would that create unreasonable restrictions on rights? Would it mean the Charter applies unequally depending on where one lives?


86

Constitutional Repatriation (1980-82) 1

• Trudeau and his plan:– Goal: to foster a political nationalism based on rights and freedoms

(common values) – thus defusing ethnic and regional nationalisms• Especially national bilingualism, defusing a linguistic ‘homeland’

mentality– No reform of interstate federalism - that might reinforce regionalism– So… Charter of Rights and Freedoms (individualist vision)– And… recognition of gender equality, ‘existing’ aboriginal rights,

and the multicultural heritage of Canada

• Idea of unilateral amendment: take it to Westminster– Patriation case (1981): legal, but against spirit of constitution…

So… another round of negotiation

• How hard is it to get 10 premiers, to agree on anything?– whose reputations are built on independence from Ottawa– who come from different parties– who have different levels of popularity

• And if they do, who is making the Constitution? The people?


87

Constitutional Repatriation 2

• Context: Quebec humbled by referendum loss– Think of this as the electorate defining the negotiating position:

no longer “a knife to the throat of English Canada”• Quebec had formed an alliance with other provinces except NB and

Ont. But this broke when Trudeau got Lévesque to agree to a referendum– “Night of the Long Knives” (Quebec stabbed in the back)

• So it finally worked, but without Quebec– Charter – but with Notwithstanding Clause

• tension of federalism versus parliamentary sovereignty• popularity of Charter and illegitimacy of Notwithstanding made for a

victory for the federalist – community of individuals – view – Amending formula… 7 provinces at least 50% of population (7/50)

• this is 7 PROVINICAL GOVERNMENTS – NOT REFERENDUMS– Opting out of programs allowed, but no financial compensation

• Quebec thinks Quebec is relegated to just another element of multiculturalism

• So: is the Constitution legitimate if it was rejected by such an important component of the political community?– many, both inside and outside Quebec, don’t think so!


89

Post- 1982 Constitutional Development - Meech Lake

• Mulroney Conservative gov’t elected (1984) with a promise to “bring Quebec into the constitutional family with honour and dignity”

• Meech Lake Accord agreed to in 1987– backroom deal: a governments’ constitution (not a citizens’ const.)– Two-Nations vision vs. Equal Provinces vision– “distinct society” for Quebec… but– opting out with compensation, expanded amendment veto for ALL– A PROVINCIALIST COUNTER-STRIKE AGAINST THE CHARTER

• Failure of the Accord, June 1990– “Charter Groups” opposed to it: Feminist and Aboriginal Groups– Institutional ‘veto points’: Prov. gov’ts changed, legislative consent was

required, procedural rules required time, and time ran out• Failure of Meech because of lack of popular involvement?

– condition for future was a citizens’ constitution– so: Citizens’ Forum traversed the country in 1991

• In Quebec it was interpreted as rejection – condition for future was Quebec-Canada, nation-to-nation negotiation– so: Reports emphasize what Quebec wants, ignoring Rest of Canada– Quebec issues an ultimatum: referendum on sovereignty in 1992


90

Post- 1982 Constitutional Development – Charlottetown Accord

• Federal government releases proposals that lead to the Charlottetown Accord, after Quebec joins the negotiations– Canada clause, laying out the fundamental ‘characteristics’ of

Canada– Quebec to preserve and promote its Distinct Society “within

Canada”– BUT… “equality of the provinces”! – Bigger House of Commons (Quebec 25% guarantee)– Smaller Senate, but equal representation of provinces– the usual decentralization… opting out, restriction of fed.

jurisdiction– more unanimity required in the amending formula– “inherent right of self-government” for aboriginal people (3rd

order)

• FAILED Referendum (September 1992) – separate Quebec & ROC votes– Something for everyone to hate– Only passed in Ontario, NB, Newfoundland, PEI (overall 46% yes)


91

1995 Quebec Referendum and the Response

• Quebec’s response – after the election of the PQ – was to hold referendum on sovereignty

• A narrow loss 50.5% to 49.5%! 60% of francophones YES

• Federal Government:– Plan A: Conciliatory. Calgary Declaration.– Plan B: Tough. Supreme Court Reference

• SC says all parties have an obligation to negotiate in the event of a YES

• Since then, polls show sovereignty less popular (40%±)


93

What’s at stake? Winners and Losers?

Winners• The individual – Charter gives more powers against

gov’t• Quebec federalists / anglophones – status quo better

than independenceLosers• Quebec electorate? One-dimensional politics• Quebec Nationalists? Always frustrated• The national ‘community’ – bonds are weaker• Aboriginal peoples – never at top of the agenda

Is compromise possible? Under what conditions? Under which institutions (referendum, first ministers, constituent assembly, well-designed asymmetry)


94


Aboriginal – Canadian Relations



95

Logistics

• One paper cancelled – Only 3 papers required– you may do four under the original grading scheme if you

want to

• New grade allocation is 15%, 20% and 25%• Due dates for the two remaining papers are now the

same for everyone: – Friday March 4 at midnight to Turnitin– Thursday March 24 at midnight to Turnitin – Hard copies must be given to the TA the following week in

tutorial


96

Aboriginal Politics in Canada - Introduction

• Three Groups– Indians: 50+ Nations/Cultures/Language; 500 ‘bands’– Métis: descended from intermarriage of Indians and Fur

Traders– Inuit: recent arrivals (1500 years) to treeless North

• Major Issues– Lack of agreement to ‘join Canada’; unfair terms of treaties,

etc.– History of injustice/abuse/assimilation– Canada does not accommodate their desire to preserve their

distinctiveness (culture, traditions, languages, modes of governance) through self-government


98

Post-Confederation History

• Treaty-Making– “to obtain rights to as much land as possible for as little as

possible” – cheaper than clearing the land by force (as in USA)– many Indian peoples also wanted to enter treaties because

traditional livelihoods/lands were disappearing– money, livestock, seed, materials in exchange for land– BUT THEY WERE UNDERSTOOD DIFFERENTLY BY THE TWO

PARTIES!

• Indian Act (1876)– under Federal gov’t power over “Indians and Lands Reserved

for Indians” s.91(24)– established paternalistic relationship– Indian Agents in charge of each band had absolute power


99

Indian Act Provisions: The power of the State & its Law

• Interfered with traditional government– mandated election of leaders– decisions by band councils could be disallowed

• Canadian government determined ‘status’– e.g. Women lost ‘status’ if married non-Indian man– men lost status if they elected ‘enfranchisement’

• Restriction of economic activity (e.g. farming)• Outlawed cultural practices• Limited legal activity by bands• Authorized and encouraged residential schools• BUT ALL THIS WAS RESISTED


100

Aboriginal Peoples – Confronting Injustice(Indian First Nations, Inuit, and Métis)

• Canadian policy basically assimilationist until 1970– Discouragement (even illegality) of ceremonies (i.e. Potlach)– Loss of status / full Cdn. citizenship on military service or voting– Expropriation of reserve land– Residential Schools – broke family transmission of culture & language– No effort to discourage racism / stereotyping by non-aboriginal Canadians

• Trudeau/Chretien White Paper (1969) outlines policy of integration/assimilation

• Reaction makes gov’t pull it back• New policy of land claims, treaty renewal, culturally sensitive

education, devolution of powers to band councils, along with… funding of aboriginal organizations and their legal challenges

• But these steps did little to improve social, economic, and health conditions for aboriginal people

• So Aboriginal organizations press for:– greater powers of self-government– Constitutional Recognition of an inherent right to self-government


101

Aboriginal Self-Government? An “inherent right”?

• Aboriginal people wanted rights recognized in the Charter

• Got some of this: “existing aboriginal and treaty rights”

• Since then have pushed for entrenchment of a right to self-government

• Why an inherent right ? – Constitutional recognition would oblige federal and provincial

governments to negotiate and recognize governance structures determined by each First Nation (+ Inuit & Metis)

– It would essentially create a Third Order of Government– It would secure rights to a land base, which is required for

economic self-sufficiency


102

The Current Situation

• Wide variation in living standards / life-chances– Aboriginal Canadians more likely to be in jail, in poverty, out

of school, in substandard housing– but more and more in post-secondary education

• LIMITED Self-government being realized. SLOWLY.• Violations of treaty rights being compensated

– “treaty rights” guaranteed by the constitution– courts looking at ‘intent’ of treaties (e.g. Marshall case)– modern ‘treaty-making’ for groups not covered by original

treaties

• Basically, Aboriginal nations want to reclaim sovereignty

• Nunavut


103

Self-Government… The Issues (Pro)

At the moment… Self-government remains a ‘delegated’ power; bands are not a constitutionally-defined ‘third order of government’

Arguments Pro-Self-Government:• Aboriginal cultures must be preserved to enable individual

aboriginal persons to flourish (a liberal-democratic value)• Doing so requires political and social institutions that

have enough power to protect the culture.• Self-government would allow those cultures to succeed in

a separate political/geographic space.• Aboriginal people can develop distinct ways of delivering

services to their citizens that will serve different needs.• Funding this requires transfers of ownership to land: ‘land

claims’


104

• Just too many small groups to be ‘states’. – 600 bands; 2200 reserves. Not viable as countries. – Small land areas, no economic base, can’t deliver services

like health care, education, police to populations of 1000

• Off-reserve population is ½ . Who could be subject to aboriginal governments’ authority?What would their status be: Which laws to obey?

• Sovereignty and continued receipt of transfer payments are incompatible

• Self-government will work in a limited, municipal sense

• Pan-Indian nation as a ‘province’? – would face major ‘constitutional’ issues to get started

Self-Government… The Issues (Con)


105

Aboriginal Political Realities

• The Courts– Most of the progress of the last 30 years has come through

challenging government laws and practices in the Courts: treaty rights, hunting and fishing rights, gender equality, title to land, exemptions from taxation on reserve, equality in the court system

– But all this is still happening through a system that many aboriginal people argue is illegitimate. Why should they fight for what is rightfully theirs?

• Who speaks for Aboriginal People (as a whole)?– Band governments sometimes very factional / familial– Assembly of First Nations made up of chiefs of 500+ nations– The AFN is a confederation!

• The Indian Act and the dead First Nations Governance Act (2003)– paternalistic relationship – defines who is an aboriginal person!– Indian Act was the instrument of assimilation– governance structures at odds with traditional governance– FNG would have made bands more like municipalities

• So… Modern Treaties (e.g. Nisga’a) and Land Claims– But this is really slow. How can hundreds of groups negotiate with a

small branch of the federal government, along with 10 concerned provincial gov’ts.


106


The Executive The Political Executive: The Prime Minister & Cabinet

The Permanent Executive: The Public Service



107

The Canadian Executive – Cabinet and BureaucracyFederal OR Provincial

• Governments do a lot – who does all this?• Ministers of the Crown – The Cabinet (Queen’s Privy Council)• Presiding over “Line Departments”: programs and services

– like drug approvals, job training, regulating trade

• Bureaucracy (or Civil Service) is huge: we need control over it• The principle of ministerial responsibility accomplishes this

– Ministers of government departments are answerable to the legislature for everything their department does

– This gives ministers an incentive to monitor their department’s activities and make the important decisions

– If mistakes are bad enough, the minister is expected to resign

• The Prime Minister and Cabinet are responsible collectively to the legislature for all the decisions of their government– This is particularly important in the context of the BUDGET (TODAY!)

• The Prime Minister wants to know what departments are doing


108

Cabinet (Ministers) and the Policy Process

• Ministers also develop policy and draft legislation • But policies are interrelated• So important matters are all run past the PM in some

way– The PM can’t say he/she didn’t know about REALLY important

stuff– The public & media expect the PM to have control over gov’t

• Ministers are told – what initiatives to pursue – and how much money they’re going to get

• But on lots of everyday matters, they are managers– expected to keep things running smoothly


109

Primus Inter Pares: The Prime Minister (and Premiers too!)

• Prime Minister not identified in the constitution• Somebody has to form a government – name a Cabinet

– This could be the party by voting, but in Canada it’s the PM who decides

• G.G. turns to the person who has the allegiance of a majority of members of Parliament

• The PM:1. Has the power to appoint and dismiss Cabinet Ministers

(shuffle)2. Decides when to call an election (except now in BC!)3. Appoints ambassadors, judges, senior public servants, etc.4. Sets the agenda, chairs, and sums up Cabinet Meetings5. Determines government’s organizational structure6. Has a hand in all Cabinet committees

THINK OF HOW ALL THIS POWER ADDS UP BY AFFECTING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO!


110

The Central Agencies• To do all this, PMs have enhanced the size & power of Central

AgenciesThere is now a lot of power located in the Central Agencies

1. the Privy Council Office (PCO)2. the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)3. the Ministry of Finance4. the Treasury Board

• These four decide how all the other departments relate to one another, especially in terms of gov’t spending

PCO: directs the operations and agenda of the Cabinet, coordinating policy, taking a broader view of policyand directs the senior public service (recommends DM appointments)

PMO: political influence on overall policy used by PM to control ministers and their departments (a source of advice independent of depts)

Finance: overall budgetary control – must approve spending – BUDGET Treasury Board: the details of spending, how much will programs cost,

and how should money be spent


111

The Politics of CabinetWhat are the interests of and incentives for Cabinet Ministers? How are these balanced by the PM’s

interests?1. Regional: Ministers enhance their reputation by defending the

interests of their province / region / city 2. Succession: Ministers fighting for exposure and good Cabinet jobs

if they want to be PM3. Spending Money: To get good coverage, Ministers want to spend

money– this means convincing the PM & Finance that dept. projects are good– PM and Finance minister have to watch the bottom line if the public

wants them to balance the budget

• PM needs to retain loyalty, so he/she can’t be too dictatorial– Ministerial uprising could force the PM out as party leader– Ministerial resignations would shatter the party and doom it in the

next election

• Advent of Cabinet Committees fractured the cohesion of Cabinet, making the PM more powerful – a “divide and conquer” approach


112

Why has the PM become more powerful?

1. The PM tries to keep his/her party together because party division has been seen as electoral suicide (the Tories):– balancing regional input– naming a representative Cabinet– rewarding loyal service with appointment (patronage)– nominating (or vetoing) local candidates for MP

2. Technology: PM is obviously the focus of media coverage– so the MPs and Cabinet ministers depend on the PM’s performance– This makes the PM accountable for the actions of his/her government

and party… more personally accountable than before TV!

3. In a context of executive federalism, the PM makes some decisions behind closed doors with the Premiers

4. Increasing importance & scope of international agreements


113

Consequences of Prime Ministerial Power

• Diminishes representational role for MPs• Diminished representational role for Cabinet Ministers

– “Cabinet has become a focus group for the Prime Minister”

• Diminished party democracy• What the PM wants done gets done, not much else• Bias toward inaction in policy making:

NO-ONE WANTS TO MAKE A MISTAKE– this is what the PCO & PMO are motivated by

BUT: • THINGS GET DONE• ACCOUNTABILITY

– We know who did them (or didn’t do them). We know who to blame.


114

The Doug Young Example

WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM?

HE LOST HIS SEAT IN THE 1997 ELECTIONHis constituents were able to identify

him as a guy who cut gov’t programs


115

The Public Service / Departments / Ministries

• Public service does what government does (administration)– half a million of ‘em!

• Principles of the public service– merit – hiring not based on politics / party (wasn’t always so)– neutrality – serve the minister, no independent political agenda– rationality – many possible policies considered, costed, decided on

the basis of all available facts– continuity – one big organization with institutional memory

• But public servants aren’t perfectand, collectively, have immense power

• SO… Ministers have to monitor their bureaucrats to prevent policy and administration from drifting away from their goals

• This is hard because there’s so much for ministers to do, and the public service can control the flow of information to a ministerMinisters have appointed political staff to help them do this

• SO there’s administrative responsibility in the Deputy Minister


116

The Tension – Neutrality versus Political Control

• A neutral public service can provide the best advice• But an independent public service can do what it

wants• So ministers have to steer a course between

unecessary interference and necessary monitoring

• Example: Jane Stewart, Human Resources Development Canada, and the so-called ‘billion-dollar boondoggle’


117

Accountability

• Other problems with accountability– Less is done by traditional departments– Crown corporations and agencies are purposely ‘arm’s

length’– Ministers less willing to take responsibility

• Other Controls– Parliamentiary Committees– Agents or Officers of Parliament

• Auditor General• Official Languages Commissioner• Information Commissioner• Privacy Commissioner• Chief Electoral Officer

– Judicial Review• Courts can review administrative decisions• Charter Guarantees


118


Parliament



119

Canada’s ‘Fusion of Powers’ – Cabinet in Parliament

REVIEW:• Executive and legislative branches are distinct• Executive power: propose, implement, enforce law• Legislative power: accept (pass), change (amend), or

reject laws proposed by the executive• Our executive (Cabinet) is always part of the

legislative


120

Parliament

• Parliament (parle ment, en francais) arose as a place where nobles got together to discuss how they were being treated by the King, and then (hopefully) to change his behaviour

• Gradually, these assemblies gained real power• Had power well before they were properly democratic• Parliaments (assemblies, legislatures) now

the embodiment of popular sovereignty• So we have parliamentary supremacy• Even the practical power, Cabinet, derives power &

legitimacy from support by Parliament• Parliament: RULES (formal & informal) + PEOPLE =

OUTCOMES


121

House of Commons and Senate

• Canada, and lots of other countries, has a bicameral legislature (2 houses of parliament)

• In places where they both have legitimacy…Senate gets in the way of Cabinet government

• So our Senate has little legitimacy– good if you like gov’t getting things done, – Originally, it was intended for regional (provincial)

representation

• Only a convention dictates that the government requires only the support of the House of Commons, not the Senate

• Senators study and refine legislation in committees– “sober second thought”

• Only rarely will the Senate really block legislation– 1988 – Canada-US Free Trade – Senate blocked it, forcing an

election


122

What’s a Legislature For?

• Representing interests– geographic interests fundamental

• Representing individuals (role of MP)• Focussing debate, setting national agenda• Making laws!

– Debating the general direction of policy– Debating specific laws– Changing bills to make them acceptable to parliament &

public

• Getting in the way of the government, slowing it down• Watchdog: over the implementation of laws

So…. Do our legislatures do this stuff?


123

The House of Commons as a Legislature

• Any MP can make any proposal– Private Members’ Bills and Resolutions– … except bills dealing with raising or spending money (gov’t only)

• but Everything in the House is structured by parties• Parties formed Parties formed becausebecause passing laws requires passing laws requires

collective actioncollective action • So the process of legislation is controlled by parties

– not just any party! The government party – actually, the Cabinet

– The Cabinet puts legislation before the House, controls the House agenda, and the timing of debate

– All ads up to the Government’s Legislative Agenda

• Parties are now recognized by Parliament itself (through legislation)

– research funding, office space, election advertising, etc.


124

Legislative Info Site from Library of Parliament


125

Party Discipline: Why are Parties so Strong in Parlmnt?

Canada has the Strongest Parliamentary parties in the world!1. Party Culture: members are members for a reason 2. Prime Minister has so much power over the careers of Members

of Parliament in his/her party– Rewarded for loyal service and punished for dissent– Little independent support base in the party (exception: Paul

Martin)– Can threaten confidence motion which might lose them their jobs

3. MPs have a minimal legislative role– they don’t have much information on policy proposals– so they don’t have a much of a forum where they can get media

coverage and public support if they take a stand against their party4. Parties can be strong because they are weak in secret:

in party caucus, members voice their concerns5. So little incentive for individual MPs to dissent

– punishment is harsh; reward is slight– MPs aren’t rewarded by electorate for independence (excpt:

Nunziata) because voters respond to parties.

– PM can veto a riding nomination, so you won’t get to run again for your party if you annoy or undermine the PM.


126

Consequences of Party Discipline

• Backbench (non-Cabinet) MPs feel powerless… and they are

• Very little public representation of constituency, local, regional opinion in the House– but really does happen in private: caucus and committees

• Parliamentary activity (committees) is invisible• The positive side:

government not at the mercy of shifting factions of MPs (representing particular local interests or interest groups)– That’s basically what happens in the US Congress– Our Govts do things to maximize their national electoral

chances

• Government can get things done QUICKLY!


127

The Opposition

• “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition”– A status achieved with much resistance (1700s)…

How could one oppose the monarch and still be loyal?

• Role is to criticize the government and debate policy• Make the governing party account for its actions

– BC? Small opposition a problem?

• Political payoff comes from EMBARRASSING the gov’t– Question period is the forum, and gets most of the media

coverage

• More constructive role is – participation in debate on policy– membership in House committees to review legislation and

monitor the administration of laws by the executive (bureaucracy)

• Minority Government – sometimes other parties get to make a deal with a gov’t if the gov’t doesn’t have a majority


128

Challenges to, Criticisms of Canadian Parliament

1. Representativeness– Geographic misrepresentation/distortion, inequality through

parties/electoral system– Groups not proportionally represented: women, aboriginal

people, ethnic/racial minorities, income (class), occupations– Senate is APPOINTED!

2. Adversarialism– Confrontation is no way to solve problems– Media distorts the incentives for opposition and gov’t– Public is, not surprisingly, turned off – undermines

legitimacy

3. Ineffectiveness– Weak control over the executive (given party discipline, etc)– No real, effective discussion of policy / legislation– Members don’t know what their constituencies want, and

couldn’t represent those opinions even if they did


129

Parliamentary Reform

Parliament• Looser party discipline?

– more viewpoints represented– government looks weaker, but more responsive– but this might undermine responsibility and accountability

• MPs running agains their government• Is this compatible with party leaders’ control over nomination

process

• More effective committees– partly for policy development – might check bureaucratic power– partly for oversight – committees given resources to investigate

and keep the executive on their toes

Senate Keep it or Abolish it?1. Equal? Should provinces have the same number of senators?2. Effective? Should it be able to veto House legislation or just

delay it?3. Elected? Should we elect Senators or provinces appoint them?


130


Law and Politics



131

Exam Format

2.5 HOURS LONG

Part I (40%): Choose 8 of 12 items - define and significance

Part II (60% - two essays 30% each):Choose one of three essays (pre-reading week subjects)Choose one of three essays (post-reading week subjects)Questions similar to paper questions. Same kind of expectations as for the paper.Don’t waste space with intro and conclusion!Jump straight into answering the question.


132

• In Canada, the ultimate policy-making authority is Parliament, consisting of elected representatives in the legislature and at the top of the executive branch

RIGHT??????

Power-hungry unelected liberals?Or a necessary safeguard of our Rights?

WRONG!WRONG!• In the process of judging law (adjudication function)…

a great deal of policy is effectively made by judges• A raging controversy in political, political science, &

legal worlds

Are judges too powerful? Are judges too powerful? Do they really Do they really makemake law? law?


133

Let’s look at the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms

Guarantee of Rights and FreedomsFundamental Freedoms

Democratic RightsMobility RightsLegal Rights

Equality RightsOfficial Languages of Canada

Minority Language Educational RightsEnforcement

GeneralApplication of Charter

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms: Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.


134

Examples of Supreme Court cases from 1997-98

1. Quebec Secession ReferenceFederal government reference asking whether Quebec has the right to secede

from Canada unilaterally. Answer was no, both parties have to negotiateJudgment affects federal and Quebec strategies, division of lands and debts,

citizenship, etc.2. Delgamuukw

BC case. Confirmed aboriginal title (ownership), not just usage rights. Decision supported aboriginal claims to lands not covered by treaty

Decision at odds with majority opinion in BC, major economic impact3. Eldridge

On the basis of Charter guarantee of equal treatment under the law, required BC to pay for interpreters for deaf patients in hospitals

BC govt had decided the money was better spent elsewhere, but the Supreme Court of Canada didn’t consider the cost

4. VriendAlberta case. Court wrote in sexual orientation to the list of prohibited

grounds of discrimination in Alberta’s Human Rights ActAlberta government (PC) was divided on legislation affecting guarantees of

equal hiring based on sexual orientationGovernment considered using notwithstanding clause to shield the Act,

but public outcry dictated against this strategy


135

How the Court System Fits – In Theory

• Fundamental principle: separation of law and politics• Judicial branch is the third, least important, branch of government• Court process is adjudication (not negotiation, arbitration, voting)• Legal system based on rationality, principle, logic, consistency • Contrast with a view of politics as somewhat sordid:

based on raw interests, on cost-benefit calculations, on popularity

• So… an Independent Judiciary (appointed by gov’t but not removable)

• Former Chief Justice John Sopinka says:Shielding the judiciary from inappropriate influences means shielding it

from other branches of government because it is in these branches where political interests are most powerfully felt.

Political power and interests… especially if they represent a majority, would prefer that all disputes be political, rather than legal, because politics lets the powerful win. Only the law allows the weak to win against the strong.

– Some say this is nothing but power-hungry rhetoric!


136

The Judicial system, diagramThe Structure of the Justice System


137

The Structure of the Justice System

1. Hierarchy (possibility of appeal) is to provide fairness:– legitimacy of decisions enhanced if appeal is permitted– judges are disciplined by the possibility of appeal– uniformity is much enhanced by the results of appellate

judgments

2. Independence of the Judiciary:– appointed on advice of the Bar Associations,

no parliamentary review– non-removal– self-regulated salaries– appointed by feds, constituted (set up) by provs (higher courts only)

– convention that judges and politicians don’t discuss ongoing cases

– judges can’t speak out on politics


138

Judicial Policymaking? The Charter Two-Step

• Adjudicaton and Lawmaking are intertwined – law always has some imprecision,

so judges have to choose between competing interpretations(especially in common law – judge-made law in the absence of legislation)

• The Charter created a new relationship between the judicial system and the legislative/executive

• Most Charter cases come on appeal from lower courts

• Most Charter cases are citizens taking gov’ts to court

• So Charter Two-Step:1. Does the law violate the Charter?2. If so, is it a “reasonable limit” under section 1?

Use the “Oakes Test” to determine this…


139

The Oakes Test

1. Is the law's objective important enough to justify overriding a charter right?

2. Is the law a proportional and balanced response to the problem it is trying to solve? In other words: 1. Is the law rationally connected to its purpose? 2. Does the law impair the right or freedom as little as possible? 3. Do the law's harmful effects outweigh its benefits?

“15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”


140

Same-Sex Rights Timeline


141

Ontario Court of Appeal Judgment


142

Reference re: Same-Sex Marriage


143

Judges Have a Strong Policy Influence

• The Charter is, by definition, more vague than legislation, so decisions are more law-making and less law-applying

• In general, the higher the court, the more it engages in judicial policymaking because – the chances of appeal diminish – and judicial remedies (for legislative failure) are stronger

• The Supreme Court (SCC) judges (makes) law for all of Canada. If provincial courts disagree, and there’s a appeal, the SCC judgement applies to all provinces– This is why Quebec wants Quebeckers on the SCC– And this is why provinces weren’t too keen on the Charter– e.g. Same-Sex marriage…

Courts in Ontario, Quebec, BC made different decisions


144

The Paradox of Liberal Constitutionalism

Christopher Manfredi:if judicial review evolves such that political power in its judicial guise is limited only by a constitution whose meaning courts alone define, then judicial power is no longer itself constrained by constitutional limits…

The paradox is that judicial enforcement of rights in the name of liberal constitutionalism may destroy the most important right that citizens in a liberal democracy posess, i.e., the right of self-government

Unfortunately, judges are not more infallible than legislators or other policy-makers in transforming competing demands into public policy. Nor are they necessarily more solicitous of individual rights.

From: Judicial Power and the Charter – Canada and the Paradox of Liberal Constitutionalism


145

The SCC and Judicial Policymaking

• Constitutional Law is where this is really important– In non-Constitutional cases legislatures can just rewrite and re-pass

the law. Not in Constitutional cases.

• SCC gets to choose the cases it hears (control of its docket)• Unlike other federations, it has authority over provincial

laws– But the SCC has focussed on public law and especially federal public

law (criminal and administrative) and constitutional law…So most provincial private laws (e.g. civil statutes, regulations, etc.) have the Provincial Supreme Courts as the highest appeal

• Reference cases: Governments asking courts “What If?”– more political, more speculative, more interest group involvement– best examples are the Quebec Secession Reference & Same-Sex

Marriage


146

The Charter and the Judicialization of Politics?

• Law now has to be Charter-Proof

• Charter re-opened all kinds of things – rather than clarifying them, it is more ambiguous,

with all kinds of rights being balanced by others or by s. 1• e.g. same-sex marriage equality vs. freedom of religion?

• Response depends on judicial restraint or judicial activism – restraint is only negative judgments (striking down laws)– activism involves specifying remedies (positive orders),

• SCC has become more activist with the Charter– in both liberal and conservative directions!– e.g Eldrige (BC hospital interpreters) and Election spending

hallenges

• Rules ofStanding loosened: courtroom is more political– interest groups and others are allowed to intervene in cases that

have broad implications – decisions are thus necessarily more political

• Experts used to give evidence: essentially policy analysis!


147

The other side of the debate: Not too much judicial power

• We decided to give judges this power• Legislatures can respond:

– rewrite the law to accord with Court judgments (they have done this)

…the decisions of the Court almost always leave room for a legislative response. In the end, if the democratic will is there, a legislative way will be found to achieve the objective albeit with some new safeguards to protect individual rights (Hogg and Thornton 1999, 22)

– invoke the notwithstanding clause• but political costs • Legislatures are wimps? (Tobacco Products Control Act!)

– “The Charter, like other bills of rights, was intended to protect citizens and other human members of the polity. Thus, the Court’s elevation of a corporate economic interest to the same status as individuals constitutional rights, and its protection of that interest, are ill-conceived.” Janet Hiebert

• Judicial activism reflects legislative restraint: politicians want to avoid making difficult, polarizing decisions

• Public opinion supports the Charter and the judiciary


148

Questions about Judicial Politics• Does this “erode the habits of representative

democracy”?• Should we have a review process for potential Supreme

Court judges?– Would this make the Court more well-balanced ideologically– Would the Court be more representative (women, minorities,

etc.)– Or would it politicize the judicial branch (like in the USA)

• Do Canadians care that there is a body like the Supreme Court that is powerful but unelected? – Some of our politics is in the hands of learned, capable, fair-

minded people who do not have the imperatives of politicians

• Are governments to blame? Shifting the really controversial politics to courts in order to avoid punishment by the losers– This seemed to be the case in Vriend, Reference Re: Secession,

Same-Sex

• Should the Courts be constitutionally limited from making policy orders?


149


Elite Politics: Interest Groups and the Media



150

Exam…ples!

2.5 HOURS LONG

Part I (40%): Choose 8 of 12 items - define and state the significance

tell us what it is and how it fits within the Canadian political system, what its function is, whether it is controversial or contestede.g. Confidence Convention, Privy Council Office, Judicial Review, Parliamentary Adversarialism, Lobbyists

Part II (60% - two essays 30% each):Use the essay to show what you know and how it all fits togethere.g. “Are the three branches of government in Canada fundamentally unbalanced? Why, or why not? What are the consequences for democracy in Canada?”


151

Interest (or Pressure) Groups

Definition: Organizations whose members act together, attempting to influence public policy to promote their common interest

1. Institutional groups– stable; organizationally developed; significant resources &

personnel• e.g. business groups (farmers, mining companies), trade unions

– focused on broad agenda of issues – cultivate relationships with officials

2. Issue-oriented groups– focused on single set of issues, often political `outsiders’– e.g., CDN anti-gun-control groups, abortion activists– fewer resources other than volunteers– more willing to exert pressure through mobilization of public

opinion


152


153

Why do Interest Groups Exist and Survive?

• Functional versus Geographic representation• Federalism & Shared jurisdiction

– multiplies veto points; gives leverage over gov’ts dependent on particular resource; federalizes group organization

• Parliamentary system– produces concentration of power; premium on access to

cabinet ministers & officials; less concern for access to MPs

• Charter of Rights– establishes rights of individuals vis-à-vis governments

this gives groups leverage via legal system

• But… all groups face a Collective Action Problem– all members can ‘free ride’ on the group’s activities– so the group has to get them some specific benefits


154

Functions of Interest Groups

1. Communicate concerns to gov’t & provide information to citizens2. Persuade public & policy-makers of need (or not) for policy

changes • e.g. BC teachers advertising during Olympics! Not Cheap!

3. Provide social services directly– grants from gov’t to all kinds of service agencies (e.g. planned

parenthood)4. Regulate activity of professional groups:

e.g. engineers, lawyers, doctors, accountants

• Not just bottom up! Some of this a response to needs of government– delivery of services requires talking to special publics receiving services– information needs– legitimacy needs

• So these groups are an indispensable part of the policy process• Not only that, their existence shapes the policy agenda

– Think of what groups are involved on homelessness:cities? churches? but homeless people can’t organize!


155

Policy Communities

• Development of policy communities– groupings of government agencies, pressure groups,

academics who have an interest in a particular policy field and attempt to influence it

– e.g., broadcasting, publishing, fish processing– symbiotic relationship

• Specialized knowledge/skills to do this, …. so professional lobbying firms

• Democratic problem if gov’t (parties) & groups get too cosy?


157

Registering Lobbyists

• Lobbyists’ Registration Act (1996)– The Act provides for the public registration of those individuals who

are paid to communicate with federal public office holders in attempts to influence government decisions, i.e. lobby

– Public office holders are persons occupying an elected or appointed position in the federal government

• Principles of Lobbyists’ Registration Act– free and open access to government is a matter of public interest– lobbying public office holders is a legitimate activity– it is desirable that public office holders and the general public be

able to know who is attempting to influence government– the system for the registration of paid lobbyists should not impede

free and open access to government• Why? To make these connections more transparent…

– competition among groups should lead to whistle-blowing if there’s real bias in the policy process

• e.g. Non-Smoker’s Rights Association vs. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council


158

Canadian examples

• Business groups– Business Council on National Issues (BCNI)– Canadian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (CPMA)– National Golf Course Owners’ Association

• New social movement groups– Canadian Ethnocultural Council (CEC)– National Advisory Committee on the Status of Women (NAC)– Assembly of First Nations– Greenpeace

• Miscellaneous– Canadian Noise Pollution activists– Consumers’ Association of Canada


159

Top 20 Subjects of Lobbying

1. Industry2. Taxation and finance3. International trade4. Environment5. Science and technology6. Transportation7. Consumer issues8. Health9. Employment and training10.Internal trade

11. Energy12. Government procurement13. Regional development14. International relations15. Intellectual property16. Labour17. Agriculture18. Financial institutions19. Telecommunications20. Small business


160

Interest Groups and Democracy

• Pluralist Theory: all interests get represented through membership in groups – political function is to balance all of the interests communicated by these groups

• Privileged access to government? Yes, but…– registration of lobbyists since 1988– publication of political contributions

• Essential representational role in modern bureaucratic state?

• Fragmentation of political community?• Money = Power? Equality of Access?

– Voice and Equality– Groups depend on money. More Money = more chance to

influence– But ultimately, group influence can’t conflict too much with public

opinion


161

Some Interest Group Web Sites

• National Citizens Coalition: http://www.citizenscoalition.org

• Council of Canadians: http://www.canadians.org• Assembly of First Nations: http://www.afn.ca• Greenpeace: http://www.greenpeacecanada.org• Canadian Labour Congress: http://www.clc-ctc.com• Canadian Federation of Students: http://www.cfs-fcee.ca• Business Council on National Issues:

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/mi00605e.html• Canadian Women’s Internet Association’s Advocacy

Page: http://www.women.ca/advocacy.html• Noise Group• Canadian Federation of Students• Canadian Association of University Teachers


162

The Media and the Public


163

The Media

• Democracy without a free press (media) is inconceivable – newspapers, TV, radio, internet

• If the media’s role is so important, then it has power– if the performance of politicians depends on citizens getting

information about their actions (accountability),– then the media shapes accountability by shaping information

• It is a political institution, but it is also a business• Don’t want other businesses to have political power,

do we?• Is the media like any other business????• It’s more like an industry, with competitive

businesses.


164

Media as business

• Profit motive: they want people to read and watch• Appeal to the media consumer

– so what we want from the news (what’s the market)

• Consumers want:– News. Not long, detailed histories. Not well-reasoned debates.

• They want to know about political developments that will affect them• Businesses/Investors want to know the same thing

– Conflict. Consensus is not news. Consensus is not necessarily boring, it just doesn’t have any news value.

– Entertainment. No one really has much incentive to watch unless it’s a little bit fun at the same time.

• All this is paid for by advertisers– advertisers don’t want content that conflicts with their message

• Monoplistic tendency, just like many other industries


165

Media Regulation

• Airwaves are a public resource, so we regulate• Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications

Commission (CRTC) grants broadcast licenses with conditions– Canadian Content– Political ‘fairness’– “High quality”– Free time during elections for registered parties/candidates


168

Is the media the root of all evil in democracy?

• The rise of TV coincides with the decline in political trust and participation. Is TV the problem?

• Are there things about the media we want to fix?– media concentration– agenda setting– power of ‘framing’– thin political content


169

Zaller’s Conflicts

• Conflict between the interests of journalists and citizens: Journalists would like to produce a more sophisticated news product than many citizens wish to consume.

• Conflict between the interests of politicians and journalists: Politicians and journalists both have an occupational interest in controlling the content of the news.

• Conflict between the interests of politicians and citizens. The basic interest of citizens is to hold politicians accountable on the basis of what the politicians have accomplished while in office or say they will accomplish if elected to office. Depending, however, on their accomplishments in office or ability to deliver on their promises, some politicians may have an interest in bamboozling the public.


170

Zaller’s Consequences

1.The Rule of the Market, or the tendency of market competition to force journalists to lower the overall quality and amount of political news

• so we get less political content because we want less than journalists want to provide

2. The Rule of Anticipated Importance, or the tendency of journalists to devote attention to occurrences in proportion to their anticipated importance in politics.

• so we get only the news, not much behind it, little explanation

3. The Rule of Product Substitution, or the tendency of journalists to substitute their voice for that of politicians in deciding what’s news.

• e.g. journalists decode political strategy; they tell us what politicians are trying to do

But parties have responded! They manage the news.


171


Party Politics and Elections



172

Why so much media coverage of the Liberal and Conservative Conventions

• Because parties are the first step from citizens to political decisions

• They’re a really important step – what happens there makes a big difference for

the choices we get and

the decisions that get made• But people don’t really like parties

– many think there’s something undemocratic about them!

• This weekend’s coverage


173

Parties and Elections

• Fundamental expression of democracy:Citizens choosing who holds power; one person, one vote

• Parties are an institution – evolved naturally – not mentioned in the constitution

• Think of how our democracy would work without parties:– voters choose local member of parliament: personal vote– conflict much more geographic, not ideological / programmatic– policy harder to propose because majority would have to be

assessed and then mobilized on each issue– lots of ‘logrolling’ (you support my proposal; I’ll support yours)– not much of a national election campaign, nat. political

consciousness

• Parties provide organization: ideas, voters, elections, etc.


174

Why Parties?

1. So that like-minded legislators get laws passed 2. So that like-minded interests could implement a coherent

program of policies (Ministers from same party)3. To support a Prime Minister (somebody has to make final

decisions) so a government & its policies will last4. To get together to share & distribute the spoils of gov’t 5. Once this has happened, the remaining members need to

combine in opposition to present an alternative gov’t6. For electoral mobilization – parties can pool resources to

get to voters and give them something to vote for7. To select local candidates, so there’s a smaller set than

would otherwise be the case


175

What are Parties? What do they do?

• Groups of politically like-minded people, pursuing power• Parties are private organizations• But they are such an important part of the political system

that their internal regulation is much like that of government

• They need privacy to develop a common position• But they need to be transparent and accountable to remain

legitimate in the eyes of supporters and potential supporters

• And they need to be accessible to encourage participation and ultimately partisan identification / membership

• Their action in electoral politics can be regulated– spending– advertising– candidate nomination– leadership races???


176

Fundamental Tension of Parties

1. Parties want to get elected2. Leader wants this more than members/activists

• because leader gets more from it

3. So leader is more centrist, less extreme– to appeal to the average voter

4. Leader wants to limit party democracy to limit the influence of more extremist elements

5. But… Leader needs those people to make a party– to fill politicial positions– to fight elections on the ground (knocking on doors, etc.)

6. So leader permits some democracy, but not too much– less democracy as gets closer to election– will annoy some more extreme members

• they might disappear from the party, or FORM A NEW ‘SPLINTER’ PARTY


177

Party Leaders

• Parties have this built-in logic to concentrate authority

• Leaders are the people who will be Prime Minister• Leaders chosen internally, by party members• For 60+ years, leaders chosen by a convention of

delegates from local (constituency) party associations

• Now, a push to choose leaders with a one-member, one-vote system. (televoting, internet voting, etc.)– A demonstration that parties are subject to same pressures

as government in general: democracy, accountability

• Leaders are the focus of the election campaign, mainly because of the way TV news gets made


178

Party Systems

• Party systems are the particular set of competitive parties in a country and the pattern of broad interests they represent

• They are just a very general way of understanding the patterns of political conflict in a society

• Party systems can be very stable, or not so stable– depending on the stability of the cleavages they map onto– depending on the electoral system– depending on voters’ attachments to parties– depending on the rules for recognition of parties in parliament, the

media, in election finance, in election advertising

• So, for example, Canada is seen to have gone through FOUR party systems

• In between each, there is a period of relatively rapid change


179

Institutional Context of the Canadian Party System

• Federal system linked to decentralized party organization

• Parliamentary system with disciplined parties unable to accommodate regional conflict

• Electoral system rewarding parties with concentrated regional support but requiring governing parties to amass widespread support


180

Changes in Party Systems: Alignment and Realignment

• Alignment: stable pattern of interests/groups tied to parties (we know which party is for what)

• Realignment: a shift in party positions on key issues/groups• Canada’s first party system (1867-1921) was realtively equal

competition between Liberals and Conservatives (alignment)• Coalitions – the combination of multiple interests under one party• For example, Conservative coalition (1867-1896):

– Deal with Quebec church to stay out of their way– Favoured large business (eastern) and old money– Broken by divergent views on separate schools crises– And by a Quebecois candidate: Laurier

• Change to the party system because of emergence of third parties: Progressives, CCF, Farmers parties, Social Credit (realignment)

• History Repeats itself: Conservatives 1984-1993 then the 1993 election


181

The Landscape of Canadian Party Politics

• Early issues in Canadian politics:– Language / Religion / National accomodation– Tariff protection for industry (versus primary sector: farmers, etc.)– Railroad & other national projects– Ties to Britain (military, economic)– Economic role for federal government

• Later issues in Canadian politics:– Federalism – centralization vs. decentralization– Constitutional accomodation – Social programs– Taxation– Free Trade w/ USA, Foreign Investment– Regional redistribution/development– NOT as much class politics as European countries

• So these are the issues on which Canadian parties divide• Because they see potential for assembling a winning

coalition


183

Case Study: What happened in 1993?

• 2½ party alignment 1963-1993 Liberals, Conservatives, NDP• 1984-93 PC coalition: Quebec and the West!

– West based on anti-Liberal, provincial power, free trade!– Quebec based on anti-Liberal, provincial power, free trade!– But: Accomodation of Quebec (distinct society) required alienation of

West– Recession, GST, deficit, etc introduced performance concerns

• 1988 – Reform party is born, elects one member in 1989• Bloc Quebecois founded by PC Cabinet minister Bouchard along with

some Liberals after the failure of Meech Lake• Voters: Want to vote against the government, so majority of

Quebecers vote BQ; Albertans vote Reform; and Ont, Man, and East vote Liberal

• PC and NDP crash, and are not officially recognized parties• A new party system: 5 parties, regionalization!, Liberal dominance

because of disunited opposition• So, pressure for consolidation outside of Quebec

– 10 years later, we got that consolidation: PC – Alliance Merger = Cons. Party


184

(this brings us to…) Elections

• Elections:Democratic Equality combined with Representation and Accountability

• Democratic Equality: All people speak for themselves, and all have equal influence in governing the political community

• Representation: We can’t all decide on all issues, so we choose a subset of people to make binding decisions

• Accountability: Governments given some latitude to pursue policy leadership, but their actions are up for review

• So, practically, elections are an economical, fair means of choosing who holds power (and it IS a lot of power)

• But there are threats to this:– tyranny of the majority– distortions of the electoral system (Friday’s lecture)– the influence of money– ‘rational’ ignorance and non-voting– misinformation (politicians, media, groups, advertising)


188

Contemporary Voting Rights

• Long struggle for franchise (suffrage):– 1867: 15% of population (all women excluded; 2/3 of men excluded

because of property/wealth qualification)– 1898: Universal Male Suffrage (plus disenfranchisment of Asians)– 1918: Female suffrage– Canadians of East Asian ancestry can vote in BC (1948),

Inuit (1950), Status Indians (1960)– 1969: Voting age lowered from 21 to 18

• Legal Provisions– Charter S. 3: right to vote– Charter S.15: equal treatment under the law– disqualifications: CEO, AEOs, ROs, inmates (2+ years), election

crimes

• Court Cases– Dixon Case (1989 B.C.): relative equality of voting power– Saskatchewan Reference Case (1991 Supreme Court): right to

effective representation


189

Election Campaigns

• Function of campaign: Provide voters with information for better choice

• But… MEDIA:advertising, spin, debates, horse-race coverage

• Campaign is both local and national, but national media dominate

• Parties & Candidates NEED TO SPEND MONEY TO CONVEY INFORMATION

• Regulated by Canada Elections Act (similar prov. laws)


190

Regulation of Finance & Advertising – Fairer Elections?

Finance• Local Candidates can only spend about $60,000• Donations are recorded (over $200) and made public (no indirect)

and limited to $5,000 / year• Donations are subsidized by the tax system: $400 costs $100!• Corporations and Unions can’t make contributions to Parties (2004)• Candidates getting 15%+ of vote get 50% reimbursed• Parties get quarterly allowances from public purse: $1.75/vote/year

– must have received 2% of vote in last election– gets 50% back from public purse

• Parties limited to about 13 million if they run in all ridings• Groups can now spend $150,000 (3rd party advertising),

but $3000 limit on supporting/opposing a local candidateAdvertising• Free time is provided according to existing strength• Parties can’t divert donations to be spent supporting them outside

the party’s budget itself (like American PACs)


192

The Democratic Citizen

• History, Social conflicts, Economy, Institutions, Parties, etc.ARE ALL VERY WELL…

• But isn’t democracy supposed to be about every citizen having an equal voice: deciding what’s best independently and then communicating their preferences by determining who will hold power

• How equal is Canadian democracy if we look at all citizens?

• If there is inequality, does it reflect circumstances or choice?


193

Forms of Political Participation

1. Electoral Politics– VOTING!!! information-gathering, info-processing, discussion, choice– Membership in parties, campaign work, giving money to parties,

2. Governmental Politics– contacting officials, representatives (telephone, letter, petition, in

person)– member of politically active (interest) group with lobbying – attending political meetings, consultations, etc.

3. Non-Governmental Politics– any form of collective action separate from government and without

ongoing attempts to influence (lobby) government– churches, community organizations, certain charities, information

campaigns and other attempts to influence public opinion4. Non-Traditional Participation

– marches, demonstrations, sit-ins, protests– organized by groups, done by individuals– new social movments try to break into politics this way, get items

on the political agenda that are being ignored by mainstream politics


194

Rates of Participation – Canada & US Activity Canadian % who do

so “often” or

“sometimes”

US % who have done so

Electoral Politics Vote in federal election 73 49

Tried to convince others how to vote 18 19

Contribute money to campaign or party 13 10

Work for campaign 6 14

Governmental Politics

Sign a petition 68 58

Contact officials or politicians 25 27

Member of politically active group 36 48

Attend political meetings 14 18

Ongoing member of political party 5 8

Non-Traditional Participation

Boycott 38 15

March 20 not available

Attend Demonstration 4 11

Sit-in 5 2

Blocking traffic, vanadalism, or political violence

? 1


195

Voting – The Democratic Act… But who does it?

• Canadian turnout has been around 70-75% of eligible voters

• But in the 2000 & 2004 federal elections, official turnout was only 61%

• Provincial and municipal turnout are even lower• Like all forms of participation,

Voters are more likely to be … (than non-voters)– better educated, better-off, married, lived in their community

longer, older (all the decline in turnout because of voters born after 1970!)

• They are also more likely to be … (than non-voters)– more interested, better informed, feel like they have a say

(efficacy), feel like politicians are honest (or, at least, not ‘crooked’)

• Do we need voters to be1. interested, discussing, actively engaged?2. well-informed about their own interests, party positions, facts

about the world, political history, voting strategy, etc.?3. looking out for the good of the whole society, fair-minded, tolerant?


196

Voting – How do Canadians Choose?

• How good are Canadian voters’ decisions?– depend on knowledge of one’s interests– party attachment may be unreliable/outdated– policy voting depends on reliable information– Can people judge Character/Competence of leaders?– Do the positions taken by groups make the task easier? better?

• Q: What are the decisions based on?– Issues? – Leaders? – Social Groups?– Longstanding attachment to parties? (party identification)– Local Candidates? – In Quebec: Sovereignty?– Polls?

• A: All these and more, depending on…– the voter herself– the climate of the campaign– the parties and personalities involved


197

Voting on the issues – Sometimes stronger than others

Free Trade and Voting in 1988

10%

45%

76%

90%

55%

24%

Oppose FTA Indifferent/ Undecided Support FTA

% VotingOtherParties

% VotingPC

Deficit Reduction and Voting in 1993

78% 73% 66%54%

36%

22% 27% 34%46%

64%

Reform PC BQ Liberal NDP

% moreimportant to:MaintainPrograms

% moreimportant to:ReduceDeficit

1988

‘Free Trade’ Election

1993 Election

1988 Debate video


198

Evaluating Elections

• Representation– MP – do MPs represent the interests/opinions of their constituents?– Parties – do parties adequately aggregate interests & compromise– Leaders – if Canadians are choosing leaders, can they judge those

people well enough; do leaders (PMs) represent all Canadians?

• Handover of power– efficient; peaceful– allows policy experimentation– constant competition enhances performance (up to a point)

• Education, Involvement, Participation Regime Legitimacy?

• Policy outcomes– steady evolution or wide swings– responsive to median voter, or more extreme groups– is policy predictable if we know winning party? if not, is there any

point in having elections based on policy promises?


199

Non-Electoral Participation

• Demonstrations, Protests, Sit-ins, Recall campaigns, Hunger strikes, Violence, etc.

• Even these forms are skewed to those of higher socio-economic status… think of the APEC protests right here on campus!

• Most of these are really attempts to shift public opinion– get an issue/concern on the agenda, or move an item up the

agenda– provide new information to change opinion

• Because political powers pay more attention to general opinion than to a relatively few demonstrators

• Some of these are direct attempts to block the political process – what is their legitimacy in a liberal democracy?– defending human rights and minority interests– or pushing a special agenda that frustrates the majority will


200

Evaluation of Participation in Canadian Democracy

• Those people who participate and get their views across are not perfectly representative of the Canadian population

• If voting is the minimum requirement for democratic citizenship, nearly half of Canadians are failing

• If more involvment is required, then we’re not even a real democracy

• Or, perhaps, some (many?) people are just taking the system’s survival, legitimacy, benefits, and effectiveness for granted

• If voting is the real driving force, then we must be worried about the quality of the information voters can get and ultimately their decisions– Should we encourage / subsidize better information, compulsory

voting?– Is there an ‘information gap’ that leads to inequality even among

participants


201

Evaluation of Participation in Canadian Democracy

• Most interests seem to have backers that are willing to organize, raise and donate money, and get attention for their cause

• Non-traditional participation is increasing, which many people see as an indication of the inequality and ineffectiveness of traditional party/electoral/governmental participation

• Direct democracy a solution to these problems?

1 UBC POLI 101 Canadian Politics What is Politics? What is Political Science? .

Documents

Transcript of 1 UBC POLI 101 Canadian Politics What is Politics? What is Political Science? .