UBC POLI 101 Canadian Politics by liwenting

VIEWS: 114 PAGES: 184

									                 UBC POLI 101
                Canadian Politics


What is Politics? What is Political Science?


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



                                                       1
                 Outline of this Lecture

1. What is Politics? Why Study it?
2. What does „Politics‟ cover?
3. What is Government?
4. Social Science
5. Social Scientific Terms & Concepts
6. Political Science
7. Canadian Political Science
8. Approaches to Political Science – Non-Critical
9. Approaches to Political Science –Critical
10. Big Questions for Political Science

                                                    2
              What is Politics? Why Study it?

          What would happen if of values,
Politics, Government, and Law are amazing:
  – Millions of people, huge distances; differences
                                                    all
           governments in Canada
    religions, experiences, economic situations
  – Making decisions collectively that bind each other to laws
              just got up for health, income, etc.
    transactions, security, and nowand quit,
  – Fundamentally, law reduces uncertainty: about economic

  – The power to make these decisions and enforce them is
          and citizens believed that
    immense
    So… Who gets that power?
                 the Constitution
  – By force, or by agreement (law)
  – Holding and turning over that power without violence is a
                 had no authority?
    considerable accomplishment in such large, diverse
    societies
  – Doing it democratically means all citizens decide, and the
                           Yikes!
    most preferred group (party) takes power
                                                                 3
                     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!

                                                                                  4
                  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


                                                                       5
                    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

                                                               6
                       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



                                                         7
            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

                                                                 8
                          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


                                                                            9
               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.
                                                           10
              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?

                                                                  13
                  UBC POLI 101
                 Canadian Politics


       The Development of Canada
What is the Canadian Political Community?

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



                                                        14
              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

                                                               15
              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     : but why does it matter?
                small

   – 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?

                                                                    16
        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.

                                                                 17
    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)
                                                                      18
                  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

                                                        19
                  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
                                                               20
              That was then, this is now…
    What is political culture? Why is it important?
• 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
                                                                    21
           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?
                                                                                   22
           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


                                                                             23
Important Facts - Immigration




                                25
Employment in Canada




                       26
                UBC POLI 101
               Canadian Politics


         Foundational Principles
      of the Canadian Constitution

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



                                                      27
                   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




                                                    28
          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




                                                     29
   Q: What is Canada? What are its Political Institutions?
         A: A Constitutional Liberal Democracy
        The 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.
                                                                           30
                    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)                            31
                      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 Canada
3)   TA office hours are listed on the tutorials page
4)   The schedule has been updated to show topics for all weeks
5)   lecture notes for last week AND this week are up

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



                                                                  32
               Example: Charlottetown Accord text on VALUES
                  This 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.
                                                                                  33
         Elements of the Canadian Political System
       The 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

                                                       35
                             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
                                                                              36
                       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
                                                           37
                        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

                                                      38
                   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

                                                                  39
                                  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


                                                              40
           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
                                                            41
                    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!

                                                               42
                  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

                                                                                    43
      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


                                                         44
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                          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!



                                                                                                                  45
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




               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


                                                                                                                  46
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                              UBC POLI 101
                             Canadian Politics

                       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



           http://www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101                                                    47
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



                      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              48
                    POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                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 laws
     e.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
                                                                                                                49
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




  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”



                                                                                                                  50
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                              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




                                                                                                                  51
                          POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



                              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

                                                                                                                      52
                  POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                                  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. …




                                                                                                              53
                    POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



         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
                                                                                                                54
                         POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



                  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 interest
   2. or let the people the get to do the work (civil servants) get out of hand
       1. doing what they themselves prefer
       2. or just “shirking” – not doing their jobs, performing services we pay for
6. We delegate this power to our representatives
7. 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!
                                                                                                                     55
                     POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




       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                                                      56
                        POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101
            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




                                                                                                                    57
                POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



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
                                                                                                            58
              UBC POLI 101
        The Government of Canada


            The Federal System
         (not Constitutional Mega-Politics)


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



                                                      59
                          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 …

                                                       60
      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
 “It is often difficult to figure out which level                              BC       AB        Total
 of government is responsible for what”             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%
                                                    N                          241      212       453




                                                                                                       61
   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
                                                                 62
                      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

                                                                 63
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.                                               64
                    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
                                                                                     65
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

                                                                        66
                Constitutional Division of Powers
Federal                    Provincial                           Concurrent
Trade and Commerce         Crown Land (Natural Resources)       Agriculture
Criminal Law               Hospitals, Charities                 Immigration
Raising of Revenue         Municipal Institutions
Postal Service             Education
Census / Statistics        “Property and Civil Rights within
Defence                    the Province”
Shipping, Fisheries        “Generally all matters of a merely
Indians, and lands         local or private Nature in the
reserved for the Indians   Province”

Residual Power



 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”
                                                                              67
                       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
                                                                    68
    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‟                                               69
   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
                                                                              70
                  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




                                                                              71
                  Announcements

• Next week‟s readings up on the website Schedule




                                                    72
                  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 see
1.   Lead-up
2.   Initial Moves
3.   Private Talks
4.   Deal
                                                               73
                Consequences of Federalism

• Cairns: Solidifies provincial societies and encourages
  provincial politicians to play to provincial identities
  so… 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




                                                                  74
                    POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                            UBC POLI 101
                           Canadian Politics

      Mega(?)-Constitutional Politics: In Search of Unity
Quebec Nationalism, Aboriginal Self-Determination, Regionalism
           All the usual Canadian preoccupations!


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



                                                                                                                75
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




        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




                                                                                                                  76
                       POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




            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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                                                                                                                   77
                        POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



                            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‟

                                                                                                                    78
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




              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
                                                                                                                  79
                          POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




       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

                                                                                                                      80
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




     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
                                                                                                                  81
                         POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101


                                    Federal (Liberal Party) Responses
• Pearson (1960s)
                                        & the 1980 Referendum
   – 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 referendum
  The 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
                                                                                                                     82
                          POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




          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 Quebec
    2.   Reduction of federal involvement in provincial jurisdictions
    3.   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?
                                                                                                                      83
                        POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




            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?
                                                                                                                    86
                           POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                       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!
                                                                                                                       87
                          POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




   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                                                   89
                        POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



 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)

                                                                                                                    90
                       POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




        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%±)




                                                                                                                   91
                  POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




           What‟s at stake? Winners and Losers?
Winners
• The individual – Charter gives more powers against gov‟t
• Quebec federalists / anglophones – status quo better than
  independence
Losers
• 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)
                                                                                                              93
           POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                   UBC POLI 101
                  Canadian Politics

       Aboriginal – Canadian Relations



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



                                                                                                       94
                     POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                                       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




                                                                                                                 95
                     POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




        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




                                                                                                                 96
                         POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                     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




                                                                                                                     98
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



                     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




                                                                                                                  99
                            POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



             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


                                                                                                                      100
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




    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




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




                       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




                                                                                                                102
                   POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




            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‟
                                                                                                             103
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




         Self-Government… The Issues (Con)
• 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




                                                                                                                104
                         POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                      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.



                                                                                                                   105
              POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                      UBC POLI 101
                     Canadian Politics

                    The Executive
The Political Executive: The Prime Minister & Cabinet
  The Permanent Executive: The Public Service


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

                                                                                                        106
                       POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



         The Canadian Executive – Cabinet and Bureaucracy
                      Federal 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!)
                                                                                                                 107
                     POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




         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




                                                                                                               108
                         POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




    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 Meetings
     5.   Determines government‟s organizational structure
     6.   Has a hand in all Cabinet committees


                THINK OF HOW ALL THIS POWER ADDS UP
                BY AFFECTING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO!                                                                 109
                            POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



                            The Central Agencies
• To do all this, PMs have enhanced the size & power of Central Agencies
There 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 Finance
    4.   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 policy
    and 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

                                                                                                                      110
                        POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                         The Politics of Cabinet
What 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 PM
3. 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

                                                                                                                  111
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




          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
                                                                                                                112
                     POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




          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.
                                                                                                               113
             POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




           The Doug Young Example

WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM?

HE LOST HIS SEAT IN THE 1997
 ELECTION
 His constituents were able to identify him                                                     as
  a guy who cut gov‟t programs

                                                                                                       114
                         POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




          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 perfect
  and, 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 minister
  Ministers have appointed political staff to help them do this
• SO there‟s administrative responsibility in the Deputy Minister
                                                                                                                   115
                  POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




     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‟




                                                                                                            116
                       POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                                 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

                                                                                                                 117
           POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                   UBC POLI 101
                  Canadian Politics

                        Parliament



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



                                                                                                     118
                  POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




   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




                                                                                                            119
                  POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                                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


                                                                                                            120
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



                   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


                                                                                                                121
                     POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                    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?
                                                                                                               122
                       POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




       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 because passing laws requires collective 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.


                                                                                                                 123
      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101


Legislative Info Site from Library of Parliament




                                                                                                124
                        POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




  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 party
4. Parties can be strong because they are weak in secret:
   in party caucus, members voice their concerns
5. 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.
                                                                                                                  125
                     POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




               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!



                                                                                                               126
                     POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                              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

                                                                                                               127
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




     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


                                                                                                                128
                         POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                         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?

                                                                                                                   129
           POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                   UBC POLI 101
                  Canadian Politics

                     Law and Politics



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



                                                                                                     130
                     POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                                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.

                                                                                                               131
                     POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



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


                         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?
                Do they really make law?                                                                       132
                              POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




         Let‟s look at the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms
                                Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
                                      Fundamental Freedoms
                                        Democratic Rights
                                          Mobility Rights
                                            Legal Rights
                                          Equality Rights
                                   Official Languages of Canada
                               Minority Language Educational Rights
                                            Enforcement
                                              General
                                      Application 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.
                                                                                                                        133
                          POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




      Examples of Supreme Court cases from 1997-98
1. Quebec Secession Reference
   Federal government reference asking whether Quebec has the right to secede
      from Canada unilaterally. Answer was no, both parties have to negotiate
   Judgment 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 impact
3. 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. Vriend
   Alberta case. Court wrote in sexual orientation to the list of prohibited grounds
       of discrimination in Alberta‟s Human Rights Act
   Alberta government (PC) was divided on legislation affecting guarantees of
       equal hiring based on sexual orientation
   Government considered using notwithstanding clause to shield the Act,
       but public outcry dictated against this strategy
                                                                                                                    134
                           POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



               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!



                                                                                                                     135
    POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



The Structure of the Justice System
 The Judicial system, diagram




                                                                                              136
                      POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




              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




                                                                                                                137
                          POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




             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…




                                                                                                                    138
                      POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                               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.”
                                                                                                                139
POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



Same-Sex Rights Timeline




                                                                                          140
  POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101


Ontario Court of Appeal Judgment




                                                                                            141
 POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101


Reference re: Same-Sex Marriage




                                                                                           142
                      POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                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


                                                                                                                143
                            POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




              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


                                                                                                                      144
                      POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




              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



                                                                                                                145
                        POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




        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!
                                                                                                                  146
                         POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



                    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

                                                                                                                   147
                      POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                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?
                                                                                                                148
           POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                   UBC POLI 101
                  Canadian Politics

Elite Politics: Interest Groups and the Media



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



                                                                                                     149
                        POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                                   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 contested
    e.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 together
    e.g. “Are the three branches of government in Canada fundamentally
    unbalanced? Why, or why not? What are the consequences for democracy
    in Canada?”


                                                                                                                  150
                       POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                    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
                                                                                                                 151
POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                                                                                          152
                      POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




         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


                                                                                                                153
                           POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                       Functions of Interest Groups
1.   Communicate concerns to gov‟t & provide information to citizens
2.   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!

                                                                                                                     154
                      POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                          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?




                                                                                                                155
                         POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                           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



                                                                                                                   157
                      POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



                          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



                                                                                                                158
                 POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term    Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




              Top 20 Subjects of Lobbying
1. Industry                                   11.   Energy
2. Taxation and finance                       12.   Government procurement
3. International trade                        13.   Regional development
4. Environment                                14.   International relations
5. Science and technology                     15.   Intellectual property
6. Transportation                             16.   Labour
                                              17.   Agriculture
7. Consumer issues
                                              18.   Financial institutions
8. Health
                                              19.   Telecommunications
9. Employment and training                    20.    Small business
10. Internal trade




                                                                                                            159
                       POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



                 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

                                                                                                                 160
                     POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                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
                                                                                                               161
 POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




The Media and the Public




                                                                                           162
                      POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                                     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.




                                                                                                                163
                       POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                             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
                                                                                                                 164
                       POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                             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




                                                                                                                 165
                        POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




         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




                                                                                                                  168
                    POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                             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.

                                                                                                              169
                       POLI 101, Winter 2004, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                         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.
                                                                                                                 170
           POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                   UBC POLI 101
                  Canadian Politics

          Party Politics and Elections



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



                                                                                                     171
                    POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




             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



                                                                                                              172
                     POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                       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.


                                                                                                               173
                  POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                              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 last
4. 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‟t
6. For electoral mobilization – parties can pool resources to
   get to voters and give them something to vote for
7. To select local candidates, so there‟s a smaller set than
   would otherwise be the case

                                                                                                            174
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




              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???

                                                                                                                175
                       POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                 Fundamental Tension of Parties
1. Parties want to get elected
2. 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

                                                                                                                 176
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                                 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



                                                                                                                177
                       POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                                  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

                                                                                                                 178
                   POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




   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




                                                                                                             179
                             POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101



                         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

                                                                                                                       180
                        POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




           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
                                                                                                                  181
                         POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




               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


                                                                                                                   183
                         POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                         (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)


                                                                                                                   184
                        POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                     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

                                                                                                                  188
                  POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                      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)




                                                                                                            189
                        POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




   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 candidate
Advertising
• 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)

                                                                                                                  190
                    POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                    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?




                                                                                                              192
                          POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                    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 opinion
4. 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


                                                                                                                    193
                                         POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler         www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                        Rates of Participation – Canada & US
                                Activity                                                     Canadian % who do              US %
                                                                                                     so                who have done so
                                                                                                 “often” or
                                                                                                “sometimes”
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                           ?                            1
                                violence
                                                                                                                                         194
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




     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 be
   1. 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?
                                                                                                                195
                         POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




               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
                                                                                                                   196
                    POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term        Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




       Voting on the issues – Sometimes stronger than others
1988                                    Free Trade and Voting in 1988

„Free Trade‟                                                                    24%
Election                                               55%
                                                                                                       % Voting
                          90%                                                                          Other
1988 Debate video                                                                                      Parties
                                                                                76%
                                                                                                       % Voting
                                                       45%                                             PC

                          10%
                      Oppose FTA               Indifferent/ Undecided        Support FTA



1993 Election             Deficit Reduction and Voting in 1993
                       22%           27%              34%
                                                                    46%                       % more
                                                                             64%              important to:
                                                                                              Maintain
                                                                                              Programs
                       78%           73%              66%
                                                                    54%                       % more
                                                                             36%              important to:
                                                                                              Reduce
                                                                                              Deficit
                      Reform          PC              BQ           Liberal   NDP
                                                                                                                   197
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                         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?

                                                                                                                198
                      POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




                   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

                                                                                                                199
                     POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




   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
                                                                                                               200
                   POLI 101, Winter 2001, 2nd Term   Dr. Fred Cutler   www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101




   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?




                                                                                                             201

								
To top