POLI 222 Final

Question 1

S Politics Definition

Answer 1

“activity where public authorities settle rival claims”

Question 2

Political Claim Definition

Answer 2

“my truth is more important than your truths”

Question 3

Conservatism Definition

Answer 3

Right

Preservation/conservation of experience/tradition/ social structure

Exception: During COVID the liberals were limiting freedom of rights while socialists were arguing for individual freedoms instead of the collective (i.e., 2022 Trucker’s Convoy/Emergencies Act)

Question 4

Conservatism Under Grant

Answer 4

Lack/unwillingness to change/institutions
Public order/policing
Maintaining traditional social structures/strong family
Less social welfare

Question 5

Liberalism Definition

Answer 5

Middle

(values enhanced by the Charter)

Gov job to protect/maximize individual freedom/property

Question 6

Socialism Definition

Answer 6

Left/NDP

society (collective) > individual (property/market)

Welfare state (egalitarianism) > capitalism

Question 7

Fragment Theory

Answer 7

Old fragments brought by first settlers to the new world

Immigration determines the political cultures (ideological distribution of a place) by Louis Hartz. Old world first immigrants that explain new world political culture.

Louis Hartz overlooks indg + Britain + French Canada and says…
To be American/English Canadian is to be liberal because the liberal fragment of the old world emigrated to the new world as people immigrated to colonial America to escape religious persecution and gain individualism.

Gad Horowitz says…
Toryism fragment (Francophone Canada bf EU liberal revolution) + liberalist individualism/bourgeois fragment (Anglophone Canada/United States).

Question 8

Regionalism Definition

Answer 8

The territorialization of politics (physically + politically + history/constitution)

Perpetuated by provincial parties = feds skewed support

QC vs. AB = Constitutional vs. economic alienation

Question 9

House of Commons

Answer 9

Legislative Branch that brings together elected representative from across Canada to debate issues/make decisions .

Proportional seats but Quebec exception (more than proportional).

Question 10

Senate

Answer 10

Seats allocated by region.

Deliberative assembly.

Scrutinize legislation as a bill must pass through the senate before becoming a law.

Create a counterbalance representation by population in the House of Commons.

Question 11

Cabinet

Answer 11

Part of the executive (implement laws). The PM appoints cabinet ministers.

Executive = PM + Ministers

Members of the Cabinet are often the President’s closest confidants.

Question 12

First Minister’s Conferences

Answer 12

Prov Premiers + PM = intergovernmental politics

Providing a forum for consultation and regulation of federal-provincial relations + equalization payment negotiations

Question 13

John A. Macdonald

Answer 13

First PM of the Dominion of Canada and a father of the confederation. In 1865 advocated for the federation of the 3 provinces to strengthen the military/economy vs. civil war

Question 14

Alexander Galt’s Federation Argument

Answer 14

1) Dominion of Canada is stronger than America because our constitution is derived from parliament and not the people

2) Confederation ought to be more centralized where the feds have greater jurisdiction vs. the provs

3) Fed gov more taxing power/money so provs interested in maintaining the fed structure

Question 15

BNA of 1867

Answer 15

Amended/re-named the Constitution Act of 1867 added to Constitution Act of 1982 (partition) + Charter

Dominion of Canada established = Fed gov + sub-national prov govs (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec)

Upper/Lower CAN broke up (land given back to QC) = Fed gov gives Franco autonomy alongside Anglo

Canadian Federation = Compact of Provinces

UK will amend BNA upon formal resolution of the HofC and Senate (fed NOT prov motion) = good thing for prov autonomy (no fed favoritism)

Question 16

Bill of Rights

Answer 16

(1960)

Diefenbaker conservative prime minister was interested in individual rights and passed the Bill of Rights (a statute not entrenched in the Constitution) saying the federal government could not discriminate.

Question 17

Horizontal Fiscal Imbalance

Answer 17

The equalization program is implemented by the fed gov to mitigate fiscal imbalance across the provinces (financial disparity) by funding provs that don’t have enough revenue to provide the same quality of public services at a reasonable tax rate.

Question 18

equalization payments

Answer 18

(1) reduces prov inequalities
(2) prov money spending/accepting autonomy

(3) constitutionalization of fed’s commitment

(4) prevent migration from poor to rich provs

(5) National unity as QC participant (push back on regionalism)

Limitations:
Large transfers for some provs means smaller transfers for others.
The fed gov can unilaterally amend the formula.
Unconditional transfer in the name of prov autonomy the provs are not compelled to use the money to finance public services.

Question 19

Part III s.36(1)(2)

Answer 19

Equalization and Regional Disparities (horizontal meaning across provs fiscal imbalance bc at same tax rate diff prov capacities like PEI potato farmers vs. Oil Alberta) - Fiscal capacity is the total revenue that a government can realistically raise given the available tax base

(1) Commitment to the welfare state (equal opp) = reasonable healthcare access/cost

(2) Fed gov make it rain to make sure provinces have enough revenue (ability dependent on $) to provide public services at a reasonable regional tax rate

Question 20

October 2021: Alberta Referendum on Equalization

Answer 20

Wants to remove s.36(2) [resentful bc QC gets equalization payments and AB doesn’t even if QC has oil but chooses not to develop] even if Jason Kenney is former fed minister for equalization

Question 21

Alberta’s Sovereignty Act (2022)

Answer 21

Allow province to refuse specific federal laws and policies that violate juridictional rights of Alberta = Constitutional dispute about provincial and federal powers = Federal proposed electricity regulations (problem shared jurisdiction)

Question 22

Equalization Calculations

Answer 22

OG way:

Fed gov estimate provincial fiscal capacity and calculate based on those estimations a threshold number and then divide into a per/capita number.

Have nots = lower fiscal capacity provinces

The halves (oil provs) = higher fiscal capacity provinces that don’t get equalization payments

Unconditional payment unlike healthcare finance (5 provisions)

New way:

The Alberta/Bill Gates effect = outlier Alberta making the mean highly sensitive (skewed) = the average fiscal capacity is higher so the average fiscal capacity number increases. The average goes up if Alberta does well and the feds have to pay more.

A new formula by throwing out the highest and lowest (skewed outliers, now only average 10/12 provs) so that the federal government only has to pay a lower number to bring up provinces to equal threshold.

Fairness vs. affordability trade-off.

Question 23

2 Types of Nationalism

Answer 23

Ethnic Nationalism (only natives) = heritage national loyalty

Civic/Ideological Nationalism (native + immigrants) = Values (liberal americans) OR territory define us

Question 24

Benedict Anderson Nationalism

Answer 24

Nations are imagined political communities that are both limited (exclusionary definition/creating boundaries within the group) and sovereign

Imaginary so not static (unlike Grant lament with his Conservative lament)

Question 25

Ernest Renan Nationalism

Answer 25

Solidarity to live together in the present = instrumentalized use of the past to influence the present’s politics

Question 26

Federalism Definition

Answer 26

Federalism is the centralization of the national government above the subnational government of the provinces. While these two levels of government have the same autonomy there are differences in jurisdictional affairs (foreign affairs vs. provincial education)

State > Nation

State = fed + provs

Fed = national gov

Provs = sub-national

each province has some autonomy either highly centralized or decentralized

Municipalities are creatures of provs = can chop up Montreal but not feds

Question 27

Trudeau’s Constitutional Patriation

Answer 27

Pierre Trudeau goal to patriate the constitution + charter (liberal indv rights/freedoms) but to do so he needs an agreement on the amending rules BUT provs can’t decide so he goes unilatarally without the provs

Reference power = 3 provs ask court of appeal for answers which fall into SCC lap

Question 28

Constitution Act of 1982 Part 5

Answer 28

S.38: General Amendment Formula (7/50 rule) = default rule = the federal government has a veto while Quebec does not = you need at least 2/3rds of the provinces such as 7 (these provinces are weighted by population, have to make up 50% of the population) = Territories do not matter because there aren’t enough people

S.41: Unanimity = if you want to amend part V (if you want to change the rules to change the rules such as the 7/50 rule) you need unanimity

S.43: Amendments affecting “one or more but not all” provs. Consent of provincial legislature(s) affected + House of Commons + Senate.

S.44: Parliament alone = Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.

S.45: provincial legislature alone = legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.

Question 29

1981 Supreme Court
(verdict + affect)

Answer 29

Verdict = “Red Light, Green Light”

Can the federal government unilaterally go without provincial consent to Britain? YES

Red Light: Is it constitutional according to convention? NO, need substantial prov consent (vague)

Green Light: Is it constitutional according to law? YES

Affect = Trudeau negotiate with 9 provs and excludes QC (1981 kitchen accord/night of long knives) = The political narrative that Quebec is outside the constitution now exists because the Quebec premier did not consent (no veto)

Question 30

“7/50” Rule

Answer 30

Either ON or QC have to be part of the provincial coalition bc they have the highest pop distribution. QC can only be thwarted if the opposing camp includes ON.

On this rule, PEI matters because you potentially need it to make up the 7 rule even if they have a low population number

Question 31

1996 Act Respecting Constitutional Amendments

Answer 31

Law that is stiffer than the 7/50 rule because now vetos are involved = feds can’t use veto on s.38 unless coalition agree

The federal government will only approve an amendment under the 7/50 rule if the coalition of 7 provinces meets the 5-region rule who have veto power (QC, ON, BC, 2 Prairie provinces with 50% of the prairie population and 2 Atlantic provinces with 50% of the Atlantic population)

POLITICAL NARRATIVE

This way Quebec has power under the constitution (supports compact nation theory vs. Quebec alienation)

Question 32

Compact of Provinces vs. Nations

Answer 32

Compact of Provinces = Dominion of Canada/Federation of the 4 provinces.

Compact of Nations = means the unity of the anglophone and francophone nations.

Question 33

Strict vs. Qualified Formulation

Answer 33

Strict = every prov is equal = all get a vote

Qualified = majority rule

Question 34

Settler Colonialism

Answer 34

The domination of somebody by an external other with a settler modality to it (settlement story)

A logic of elimination and replacement (Wolfe) = Imperative: new settlement, territorial consolidation, the elimination of Indigenous culture/spaces/legal systems/sovereignty

Settlement of one population in an effort to displace the settlement of an indigenous population. A system of oppression rooted in genocide and colonialism.

Question 35

Colonialism

Answer 35

Domination of people/place through external power

Question 36

Colonialism vs. Settler Colonialism

Answer 36

Settler colonialism involves the migration of people physically while colonialism is a type of domination rooted in practice and in policy (does not mean a group has to migrate physically).

Question 37

Imperialism

Answer 37

A policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

Question 38

Indian Act

Answer 38

federal legislation related to the rights and status of First Nations peoples (“status Indians”), first passed in 1876 (just switch 6 and 7 from 1867 confederation) and amended several times + manage reserve lands (unlike the charter highlight groups of indigenous ppls not by nation but by status)

Question 39

Sovereignty

Answer 39

Law-making authority + political assertion
The power/authority of Canada to govern itself and its subjects.

Question 40

Haudenosaunee Sovereignty

Answer 40

Sovereignty over themselves + lands + own legal practises

Question 41

White Paper

Answer 41

Trudeau White Paper (1969): legal (vs. cultural) assimilation (no legal distinctions between indigenous and the rest of us)

Remove indigenous distinctiveness (Indian Status) = no legal plurism

Amend Indian Act = denial of indigenous peoples as having any kind of special legal standing at all (special legal rights)

Amend Treaties = gov running from responsibilities (fiduciary duty to consult) = S.91(24), BNA Act: The federal government has legislative jurisdiction over “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians”, and can legislate without Indigenous consent

Transfer of reserve lands to individuals = Private property to incorporate lands into current legal standards

1) Transfer reserve land to private property
2) Indian affairs transferred to prove jurisdiction
3) Amend Indian Act/Treaties
4) Amend Indian status legal distinction

Question 42

January 1973: SCC Calder decision

Answer 42

Aboriginal title recognized for the first time = The case brought by the Nisga’a Tribal Council

Modern Treaties (comprehensive land claim agreements) = began in 1973 after Calder v. BC (indj rights recognition)

R.v. Calder (1973) = Acknowledges aboriginal title for the first time (indigenous title to land cannot only be determined through colonial law = sovereignty concept) = Is sovereignty derived from colonial law? No

Question 43

Red Paper

Answer 43

Aboriginal response to the federal government’s White Paper of 1969; the Red Paper caused the government to change its policies

June 1970 = Indian Association of Alberta (led by Harold Cardinal) formally rejects the White Paper

Demand: “Deal with both our treaty and unceded rights”

Canada as a settler nation has not followed the obligations that it has entered into

Indigenous people are not upset about the existence of Indian status but about the administration of it (R.v. Lavell = misogyny)

Question 44

Binnie J, in Mitchell v. Minister of National Revenue

Answer 44

Mitchell v. MNU (2001) = Customary law and border contestations.

Federal Court of Appeal agreed with Mitchell and held that there was an aboriginal right to import goods without customs for the purpose of indigenous trade in Mohawk traditional territory (across the St. Lawrence).

SCC overturned appeal = National interests of trade are collective sovereignty. Since the claimed aboriginal right did not survive the transition to non-Mohawk sovereignty, there was nothing in existence in 1982 to which s. 35(1) protection of existing aboriginal rights could attach.

s. 35(1) align interests of indigenous ppls with Canadian sovereignty.

Question 45

Constitution Part II

Answer 45

Canadian legal system recognizes that indigenous peoples do have rights and those rights are constitutionally protected since 1982 in part II of the constitution

Aboriginal and treaty rights constitutionalized within Canadian law = s.35(1)

Notwithstanding clause cannot be use in Part II of the Constitution

Question 46

Politics of Recognition

Answer 46

Politics of recognition = recognition-based models of liberal pluralism that seek to reconcile indigenous assertions of nationhood with settler States sovereignty via the accommodation of indigenous identity claims and some form of renewed legal and political relationship with the Canadian state

Question 47

The Supreme Court of Canada’s Calder Decision + 1970s Context

Answer 47

1973 (close to abolishment of the white paper)

First recognition of Aboriginal title and that this title existed outside colonial law.
…
Frank Calder chief launched a case of the unextinguished territories of his nations in British Columbia
Even though they lost the results was the Federal government’s 1973 statement on claims of Indian and Inuit people a federal Native Claims policy which territories with the DNA of State refusal to recognize indigenous claims to land where the question of existing title remained open

the oil crisis of the early 1970s
aggressive Push by the same industry to develop what it saw as the largely untapped resource potential of Northern Canada

Question 48

Idle No More

Answer 48

2012 to 2013

In 2012 the conservative federal government passed Bill c-45 known as the jobs and growth Act that contains changes to numerous pieces of federal legislation including the Indian Act, Fisheries Act, the Canadian environmental assessment Act, and the navigable Water Act which a road Aboriginal land and treaty rights because they reduce the amount of resource development projects that require environmental assessment and change regulations that govern on reserve Leasing and curtail Environmental Protection

it started as a grassroot education campaign initiated by four women from the prairies and it’s original aim was to provide information to Canadians about the impending impacts of Bill c-45 on Aboriginal rights and Environmental Protections before it was passed by the Senate

Chief Teresa Spence began a hunger strike to bring attention to the deplorable housing conditions and the bill

Canada had not seen such a nationwide mobilization of indigenous nations against the legislative assault on their rights since the white paper of 1969

Prime Minister Stephen Harper refused to include the governor general and the negotiations of January 11th which would have emphasized a nation’s Nation character of the relationship between the First Nations and the crown but by excluding Chief Spence’s demands Canada refused to take the treaty relationship seriously which was essential point of demanding a meeting with the governor General’s participation to begin with

Question 49

Two row wampum belt (Kaswentha) + Treaties International or Domestic?

Answer 49

1613
A principle of mutual non-interference between the Haudenosaunee and the Dutch.

Treaties as international agreements/procedures not domestic (federation of nations not those people as domesticated as a group under Canadian law)

Conflicts of laws to be addressed as between two nations (international)

Question 50

Multiculturalism

Answer 50

The presence of, or support for the presence of, several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society.

Question 51

Multicultural Policy

Answer 51

“impose on public institutions an obligation to reduce barriers to immigrant participation and more accurately reflect the diversity of the population”

Government regulations that support cultural heterogeneity in public institutions’ which help retain cultural distinctiveness

(1971) Culture should not be a barrier to participation in Canada so we need policies that promote multiculturalism and economic integration (ppl should have jobs + learn French/English) = Economic/linguistic integration under bilingual policy but move away from cultural assimilation

Question 52

1966 white paper

Answer 52

1967 points system (privy council/executive)

Question 53

Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism

Answer 53

(1963-1969)

Struck to counter growing Quebec sovereignty mov
Chief Commissioners by Pearson = French/English commissioners to convince Canadians but response was multiculturalism
Key Recommendations:

official bilingualism
minority language education
promote cultural diversity
Response:

Trudeau 2 OG languages but no official cultures (Trudeau enters politics to act as a counter-voice to the nationalist narrative)

Question 54

Cultural Mosaic

Answer 54

Each cultural group distinct + contribute to majority.

Question 55

Multiparty System

Answer 55

Many parties not only Republican and Democrats like America.

Question 56

Brokerage Party System

Answer 56

Smaller parties that try to align ideological differences that the main parties don’t talk about (i.e., Green party).

Brokerage parties have no firm ideological position. They compete to deliver policies that meet the desires of the greatest number of the people (median voter).

Question 57

First Pass the Post

Answer 57

First person who is past the post wins the electoral riding, the person that receives the highest number of votes compared to other candidates.

Question 58

Single Member Party System (SMP)

Answer 58

One person is a part of 1 party per riding/electoral district (Liberals have 1 person in a constituency and same with Conservatives, etc).

Question 59

Simple Majority System (SMP)

Answer 59

The first pass the post system creates majorities in government.

Question 60

Proportional vs. Non-Proportional

Answer 60

Proportional systems are more representative of the votes (40% votes = 40% seats but non-proportional you can get 100% of the seats because if the blue voters are 40% and vote blue in all of the ridings of a city then the city is represented by MPs from the blue party even if the majority 60% wanted other colours)

This 60% was divided into 30% yellow voters, 20% pink voters, and 10% purple voters

This means there can be minority governments under FPTP bc the candidate with the most votes wins (single member plurality voting in single-member districts)

Question 61

Non-Proportional Systems

Answer 61

Winner takes all (winner not determine by the proportion of votes but on single member plurality/first-pass the post)

You can win it all with less than 50%

Question 62

SMP or First pass the post (FTPTP)

Answer 62

The candidate that wins the election is the one with the most votes.

A single-member plurality system tends to reward bigger parties.

Single member plurality system = if your most preferred candidate is weak and your last one is strong, you have every incentive to vote for your second favourite (bloc Quebecois vs. NDP and you really like the liberals vote for second preferred candidate between the bloc Quebecois and the NDP) = incentivizes not voting the first preference.

Question 63

Majority Rule

Answer 63

You need the majority of the votes and is non-proportional because you can win 100% of the seat with 50% of the vote + 1

Question 64

Instant runoff voting/alternative voting (IRV/AV)

Answer 64

Ranking Votes

If nobody wins they take the two top candidates and have a runoff election getting a majority winner BUT placing a burden on voters that they have to show up twice which gives a potential turnout problem vs. ranking candidates and showing up once (cognitively a burden but not logistically) OR knock out the lowest candidate and re-allocate that candidate’s votes to the others

Question 65

Proportional Systems

Answer 65

Allocates seats in a district according to a proportion of votes won by the party.

The proportional vote is the best to reflect everyone’s votes but the tradeoff is an administrative burden (i.e., counting votes) + accountability question if you have a proportional system and you have a multi-member district who do you call? What is that accountability? = representative tradeoff with administrative burden or cognitive burden.

When you have proportional voting it rewards smaller parties vs. non-proportional only rewards small parties if strong sectionalism (Cairns). So long as you are above a minimum threshold you will be rewarded = a party fragmentation.

Question 66

Ways to Transfer Votes into Seats

Answer 66

(1) Ranking system = instant runoff system or in proportional systems, it’s called single transferable vote

(2) Just vote for the party you want and the part says here is our list of who those candidates are so you just vote for the party list system and the party decides who is their representative

Question 67

Strategic Voting

Answer 67

I am voting for someone who is not my most preferred candidate (usually in SMP).

Question 68

Mixed Member Proportion or Hybrid System (MMP)

Answer 68

One chamber is made of both proportional and non-proportional seats.
OR
Legislature with 2 chambers (a house and a senate) then you can make one chamber proportional and the other non-proportional

Question 69

Duverger’s Law

Answer 69

SMP/FPP leads to bipartism (party system dominated by two parties like in America) vs.
PR leads to multipartism (Canada)

Question 70

Spacial theory of voting

Answer 70

one dimension (i.e., left and right or pro and anti-pro) of voting that people care about and we are going to assume that there are going to be 2 alternative people to vote for (2 candidates) = 2 choices of candidates

Spatial theory assumes that voters can measure the distance between themselves and the candidates in multidimensional policy space, and vote either for the candidate nearest them or, tactically, for a more remote candidate with a higher chance of winning.

Question 71

Single-peaked voter preferences

Answer 71

People will vote for the candidate that is closer to them on this issue and this is the only thing voters care about

Question 72

Median Voter

Answer 72

The median voter is the voter in the middle that cuts the distribution in half

Converging to the middle = in order to be successful as a party/candidate you have to go to the middle to win

Given that the candidate is left-wing the other candidate goes right and wins because it is closer to the center (encompasses more interests by being less polarized) so more people vote for it in proximity.

But if both move to the center they converge to the median voter to maximize chances of winning
In the real world, we don’t know where the median is but try to figure it out through polling. Where the median depends on turnout = you change turnout you change the median (i.e., demographic change)

Question 73

Labour and NDP

Answer 73

There is an imperfect relationship between labour and NDP because the Canadian Labour Congress does not control unions (unions are not bound by the decision to support the NDP).

The union movement has its divisions and fractions = there are blue and white collar.

The NDP is successful enough to form governments at the provincial level.

When you are a government has to negotiate labour vs. public unions = the challenges of managing a fiscal government situation (lower taxes = moral gov debt/spending but more jobs bc more money to spend/invest) = the NDP cannot be seen only as pro-labour but also needs to govern.

Question 74

Liberals

Answer 74

The liberal party is successful because it is already in the middle on the left-right dimension and the national dimension of pro-nationalism vs. QC

Liberals are the most pro-Canada party in QC and the most pro-QC party in Canada so the liberal party does not have to sell their soul because that is where their soul is

NDP don’t have to sell their soul but also don’t necessarily want to win = their maintenance threatens the left side of Liberals which have to implement some policy stuff that the NDP want to stay in power

Liberals can act as a majority even with minority votes because the opposition is fragmented!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Question 75

CCF/NDP

Answer 75

Regional base: western, southern Ontario
– Success in provincial politics
– Weak class voting

Strong enough party of
the working class to hang on,
but not strong enough to take over as one of the duopoly.

Started as the CFF during the great depression (1933), a socialist/agrarian/populist party. Its leader was Tommy Douglas (the PM of Saskatchewan and creator of Universal Healthcare).

1935-1944 (mid 30s to war years) the CFF became a federal party vs. Liberals but Douglas moves to prov AB politics.

1958 Conservatives won under Diefenbaker

1961 NDP Founding Convention:
(1) to commit to their socialism they need to be structured that way and commit to a relationship with the Canadian Labour Congress
(2) Individual members and affiliate members through union locales (need funds/volunteers = have to sell soul)

Question 76

Effective Number of Parties

Answer 76

How many parties in this place are actually competitive? Quality of a democracy is linked to the development of competitive
party systems.

If you have a strong electoral system it pulls the # down to around 2 (SMPS/bi-parties)

Democrats and Republicans win 50% of the votes each = 2 = USA follows Duverger’s Law

Proportional representation = #s above 2

Question 77

Electoral-System Theory

Answer 77

Strong system induces action to move the number of electoral parties down into two blocs = Johnston says a polity leans toward bipartisan bc of a strong electoral system (efficient party # theory) or few cleavages

Question 78

Polarized Pluralism

Answer 78

A two-party or multi-party political system which is seen as overly polarized.

Question 79

Federalist Left vs. Sovereignties Left

Answer 79

Federalist NDP
- Social welfare means strong role for fed gov
- Support of leader Broadbent for Patriation was critical
NDP has provincial success in ROC but can’t win federal seats without QC. NDP has the least success in QC bc of cleavage structures (provinces are important but the way to have a coherent welfare state across sectionalism is that you need a strong federal government where the federal government is a funder and ties provincial autonomy).

Sovereignist Left in QC
- Labour movement in QC came to be strongly associated with PQ > NDP

NDP argument is strong federal government vs. QC strong provincial autonomy

Question 80

Asymmetrical Federalism

Answer 80

Shift in 2011 when Jack Layton was the NDP leader from QC and was francophone = among non-conservatives the conservative Harper government was not liked. 2003-2011 new leader that QCs identified with and the liberals are weak so the NDP took the opportunity but the deal is that they had to make arguments for QC votes vs. their principal of stronger federal government.

Symmetric federalism refers to a federal system of government in which each constituent state to the federation possess equal powers. The opposite is true with assymetrical federalism.

Question 81

2011 Orange Wave/Crush

Answer 81

This happens because of the weakness of the liberals and those who consider themselves social progressives under the liberals have switched to NDP with Layton + attract left-wing Bloc Quebecois voters who don’t like the conservatives and try something new
SMP story where if you have a number of really competitive parties you can have weird threshold effects where a small change in vote makes one win all the seats
4 parties competing for votes federally in 2011 (PQ, Bloc Quebecois, NDP, conservatives)

Question 82

2015 Federal Election

Answer 82

2015 the liberals came back and switched to Trudeau and won the majority. NDP was new so it also had weak partisan attachement + Layton died.

Niqab debate in the last days of the 2015 election = became anybody but the conservatives so ROC voted Liberal to block the Conservatives.

Question 83

Partisan Sorting

Answer 83

Partisan sorting is an effect in politics in which voters sort themselves into parties that match their ideology (like-minded clusters into different parties). Partisan sorting is distinct from political polarization, which is where partisans subscribe to increasingly extreme positions.

Increased polarization = Increased partisan sorting (groups become more specific)

Question 84

Partisan Polarization

Answer 84

Decreasing overlap in distributions across partisans

Increasing distance between partisan means/averages

Question 85

Spatial Proximity Voting vs. Strategic Voting

Answer 85

Spatial and proximity voting are the same thing = pick whichever one is closest to your position that you care about and choose a party/person based on that
Strategic voting to make the party that you do not want to win, lose = ranking = sought out info that is not just about the party but about competitiveness

Question 86

Colombia School

Answer 86

Campaigns don’t matter…

1950s political scientists (Barelson and Lazerflet) came up with a theory about American presidential politics

Voting behaviour wasn’t changed as much (vote shifts are stable) and anchored in the social structure (class, race, region) = socio-structural theory of voting (you grow up in certain place and this is how you will vote)

Limit that they don’t have the technology to measure change across time (discrete shifts from one election to another)

If this theory is true the campaign does not matter because it doesn’t change how people vote

Limit can’t explain the NDP winning in 2011 but accounts for generational change in votes

Question 87

Michigan School

Answer 87

Michigan school = 10 years later in the 1960s than the Chicago schoo = ability to do surveys is getting better and disagree with Columbia that their theory is too static = Camble, Congress, Miller, and Stokes say that they need an intervening variable where social structure still matters but we need more = addition to the theory of voting behaviour is partisan identification

PID is about identity = people identify with the party = psychological attachment theory that can’t be explained by just issues.

Medium to short-term factors

Question 88

PID

Answer 88

(1) It is relatively stable but has no social structure and does not experience great variation. Can shift across time but does not shift that much.

(2) PID is not the same as vote choice = I can feel attached to a party and vote for another one = if you feel attached to a party the probability of voting for it is high but we make a conceptual distinction between the two = PID is an explanation of voting behaviour but is not voting behaviour

(1) Psychological attachement

(2) Stable over time (doesn’t mean it will never change) = unmoved mover so you can see if it affects smth else

(3) Independent of current vote preference

PID voter base = people who identify with the party are the base and are the people from the election who are the most likely to vote for them because they are attached to them

If everyone’s vote is up for grabs for every election then party campaigns matter = the noise turn to the game = PID is important to parties because they can sell their soul next week with no change.

Question 89

Priming

Answer 89

The process in which the media attend to some issues and not others and thereby alter the standards by which people evaluate election candidates.

Priming/framing effect (presents issues in certain ways and says the issue should be understood as this kind of issue vs. another)(this is the standard by which you should understand this thing)

EX: Peace mission framing/priming vs. another reality frame = Canadian troops in Afganistan

Question 90

Partisan Opinion Polarization

Answer 90

Increasingly consistent preferences among party supporters and growing gaps between supporters of different parties.

Question 91

Partisan Re-alignment

Answer 91

If the party you identify with shifts in policy so extreme that you choose to no longer identify with them.

(In 1988 fed election Liberals voted Conservative because they were working class and wanted the FTA, which the Liberals were against)

Question 92

Big Tent Parties

Answer 92

MPS we have 2 big parties with one being bigger than the other (Liberals vs. Conservatives) and then smaller parties like the NDP = big-tent parties are the 2 parties
We should like big-tent parties because they are brokerage parties and having a big tent brings a bunch of different people under the tent (Party IDs are diverse) = ideological diversity

We like this because having 2 big centrist tent parties will have an overlap and common ground between parties making it easier to make deals, decide tough questions, etc.

Question 93

External Validity

Question 94

Game Frame

Answer 94

Media shapes the “informational environment” where citizens make partisan choices BUT can also undermine democracy because game framing unlike issue framing treats citizens as spectators vs. participants in the election.

Question 95

Authors + Dates (Part 3)

Answer 95

1) Miriam Smith (2014)

2) Agnes Calliste (1995)
***think of chaliste swear word

3) Emmanuelle Richez, Vincent Raynauld, Abunya Agi, and Arief B. Kartolo (2020)

4) Former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin (1999)

5) F.L.Morton and Rainer Knopff (2000)
***response to former chief justice+ parks and rec leslie knopp

6) Donald Savoie (1999)
***think of savoir

Maxime Boucher (2018)

Brooks v. Canada Safeway (1989)

Jennifer Elrick (2020)
***think of prof wife

Harrison, Kathryn, and Chelsea Peet (2012)

Question 96

Schattschneider

Answer 96

***Think of Dan Schneider from Nikelodian

“Politics is the mobilization of bias” = Politics is not about neutrality but about getting things done and what gets done gives a policy weight against bias (framing)

Question 97

Interest Group Objectives

Answer 97

Increasing voices in the political space vs. specialized political peddling

Question 98

Public Interest Groups

Answer 98

A group that seeks to propagate an idea of public interest

Question 99

Interest Group Pluralism

Answer 99

1950s-60s limited studies of interest groups and politics…

Assumptions:
(1) If there is a need a group will form
(2) The state is neutral with respect to groups (democratic post-industrialization politics)

Question 100

The Logic of Collective Action (1965)

Answer 100

Context of the civil rights movement (era of mobilization)

Ressource mobilization story between public and private interest groups…

Public = External inducement drives the creation of the group and their pursuit of that public good

Private = easier to form if the goods are excludable and non rivalrous + external inducements in it for other reasons not just the good itself

Why would you have collective action with respect to the creation of a public good (can’t exclude ppl from enjoying it once it is created so just free ride for others to do it for you)?
Free-rider problem on the work of others to enjoy that thing
People who organize get something else out of it not only enjoying the good itself

If Olsen is correct there will be more private than public interest groups + non-neutral state (dissaproves the democratic post-industrialist politics)

Question 101

Mancur Olsen Public Goods

Answer 101

(1) Non-excludable (can’t shut the door, can’t exclude ppl)

(2) Non-rivalrous (everyone can enjoy, the consumption of that good by one person does not prevent others from doing the same thing)

Question 102

Mancur Olsen Free-Riders

Answer 102

Cost-benefit analysis where organizing is costly so its better to free ride on the efforts of others to establish the public good because once it is establish no one can be excludable because public goods are non-excludable

Question 103

The Functioning of an Interest Group System/Models

Answer 103

(1) Neo-Institutionalism (Canadian politics)
(2) Corporatism (EU/Chinese politics)

Question 104

Neo-Institutionalism Model

Answer 104

(1) Paul Pross’s policy community model = in policy networks there is a center power (like how the government is composed of multiple departments)

(2) Complexity of a policy field

(3) Organization is required

Example: Energy/Environment policy where the center of the network is Greenpeace and the peripheral groups are HydroQuebec. This map change over time because in the 50s the centre would be oil guys and no indigenous people in the periphery but now they are there because of their effects on pipelines through protests.

Question 105

Corporatism Model

Answer 105

(1) Interests are organized in a more rigid/elite level structure = internal elitism among gov and groups (ability of the top union to bind the ones bellow is significant)

(2) Coordination between labour and capital = top businesses and labour politics where government departments of labour/industry create economic policies by cutting a deal with the top union/businesses

Question 106

Common Critique of Interest Group Politics

Answer 106

(1) Democracy in Peril
A) public policy is not for the public but represents the biases of private interests which are the most powerful/organized (we should be concerned if the public policy about energy is really about subsidizing the interests of oil/gas)
B) Governments want to be re-elected (supported by private interest groups) > popular voter (Carbon Tax article)

(2) Regulatory Capture Theory = the government which has to make rules in the public interest is captured by the interests it is supposed to be regulating like gas and oil = forces the creation of lobbying legislation

Question 107

Social Movements Definition

Answer 107

Social movements as aggregations/families/networks (aggregations) of diverse actors/organizations defined by what they do (sustained challenges)

The power imbalance is important to the movement in some sort = it is about challenges not about getting along or being nice

• political theatre/storytelling
• can be against the state
• specific to ideology (right vs. left)
• public display to take up space/build an audience
• not just one and done like the Truker’s Convoy (commitment over time)

Question 108

Sydney Tarrow Social Movement

Answer 108

Collective challenges, based on common purpose and social solidarities, in sustained interactions with elites, opponents, and authorities

Question 109

Charles Tilly Social Movement

Answer 109

Sustained challenges to power holders in the name of disadvantaged population by means of repeated public displays of the population’s numbers, commitment, unity, and worthiness

Historically-specific clusters of political performance

Question 110

Social Movements as DV vs. IV

Answer 110

Dependent Variables
(1) Mobilization = f(grievances) turns into f(grievances, organization, opportunities)
(2) organization = ressource mobilization model
(3) opportunities = political opportunities/process model

Independent Variables (outcomes may or may not be related to movement goals)
(1) strategies
(2) organizational issues
(3) context/opportunities

Question 111

Mobilization (Pre-1960s)

Answer 111

Focus on the rise of labour activism (only old social movements) cross-nationally (social and economic reaction)

• raised first iconography
• originated from EU
• socialism/communism in response to industrialism (ressource deprivation theory)
• materialist/redistribution vs. civil rights movement

Question 112

New Social Movements (1960s-70s)

Answer 112

New social movements = Caliste reading

• Wider geographical/social reach (explosion of mass participation)
• More about middle-class activism (used to be only poor people)
• Post- materialist values
  = identity

Still, materialism didn’t go away but part of the materialist movement was about mobilizing identity = part of the labour strike was an identity thing too as the people who were striking were Eastern Europeans so there is an intersection between identity and materialism

Question 113

Ressource Mobilization Model (70s/80s)

Answer 113

Mobilizations = f(grievances, organization, opportunities) it used to be only grievances

(1) Movement entrepreneurs = people having problems might not be necessary for a movement as they have always been here, people who are leading organizing are entrepreneurs

(2) Organizational capacity: voluntary vs. professionalized = more formalized/professional instilling credibility making it more likely to move people in the long-run because they can do media campaigns, hire lawyers, and pay their employees

(3) Ability to organize contributions of “outsiders” vs. beneficiaries = need to also organize people and money beyond that description (build coalitions beyond the target beneficiary group like LGBTQ+ and allies)

A social movement where actors pool resources = collective action

Question 114

Political Opportunities/Political Process Model

Answer 114

Mobilizations = f(grievances, organization, opportunities)

Mobilization affected by contextual factors (political opportunity structure beyond grievances = hard to get organized if you are in Russia (contextual factor)

(1) democratic vs. authoritarianism = if its about challenging elites strike when they are most disorganized
(2) media structure
(3) political cleavages
(4) party structures
(5) independence of judiciary
(6) legal rights entrenchment)

Question 115

Explaining Outcomes: Social Movements as IV

Answer 115

Outcomes may or may not be related to movement goals
(1) short-term disruptions
(2) political agenda setting
(3) policy change
(4) long-term attitude change
(5) counter-mobilization/backlash (blue vs. black lives)

Look to interactions between:
(1) strategies
(2) organizational issues
(3) context/opportunities

Question 116

Agenda Effect

Answer 116

Agenda-setting theory suggests that the communications media, through their ability to identify and publicize issues, play a pivotal role in shaping the problems that attract attention from governments and international organizations, and direct public opinion towards specific issues.

Whatever is in the media is what what we talk about for government and public life. Agendas are determined based on how much our media environment focuses on this one thing.

Question 117

Strategies: Repertoires of Action

Answer 117

Repertoire of action = not just who, but how (Tilly says its not just who you are but what you do)

Strategies are political innovations and can be adopted by other movements

Spacial (dis)placement = marches, strikes, parades, etc.

Take up space and displacing others strategy!!!

Question 118

Activism vs. Clicktivism

Answer 118

Internet/Social Media
(1) Lowered the cost of organizing across time and space (#MeToo mostly online)

(2) Speed and scale vs. longevity/salience = shows #s but you can opt-out easily

(3) Easier to surveil, counter-mobilize, counter-frame (Land Back Movement is noisier but not as effective)

Question 119

BLMTO and Pride 2016

Answer 119

Core issues:
(1) policing and structural injustice
(2) intersectionality and social movement inclusion of race, gender, and sexual orientation

BLM stopped the pride parade with a protest
Two organizations in an important social movement state where some members are parts of both groups = intersectionality of the role of identity in social movements
Movements that try to mobilize different parts of us

Question 120

Miriam Smith

Answer 120

What?
LGBTQ+ movements in the 1960s - 2000s challenge discriminatory policies + social norms (heteronormativity)

When?
2014

Thesis: The movement was successful through the political opportunity model of changing policy through legal opportunity and RM of lobbying litigation.

Argument:
Public Policy Change
1990s
1) sexual orientation prohibited grounds for discrimination (1990s)
2) same sex couple recognition (Rosenberg = spousal benefits/employer pensions)(M v. H = spousal support after break up)
3) Parenting rights

2000s
1) Age of consent
2) Transgender rights
3) Homophobia in school
4) Healthcare

Resource Mobilization…
The movement was not really well-sourced and there was disorganization in terms of 2000s policy goals (feminism/white identity) but…
1) Takes resources to go to court
2) Community healthcare >

Political Opportunity…
1) Charter challenges + prov/fed human rights legislation and debates in the 1990s about liberal individualism/egalitarianism = put political pressure on the Liberals through the courts
2) Legislative change through public support advancement (evidence-based policy of homophobia in schools through a commission) in the early 2000s
3) Political cleavages = Liberal attention through court challenged vs. NDP trans human rights support

Question 121

Agnes Calliste

Answer 121

Context:
1) Civil Rights Movement (1940s-60s)
2) American/Nova Scotia (after Africville destruction) Black Power Movements

What?
The Influence of the Civil Rights and Black Power Movement in Canada

When?
1995

Thesis: Resources are what make social movements successful but also need political opportunity. The poverty of the community + state intervention in the early 1970s sidetracked the movement.

Argument:
Resource Movement…
1) Multiculturalism (counter-used by officials to integrate Africa Canadians into the common scene)
2) Increased police surveillance + control monetary resources by funding the aspects of the movement that they agree with
3) 1971 black youth/students dissatisfied with NBCC (self-organized services vs. waiting change from Ottawa)
4) Lack of organization (polarization over moderate and militant strategies)

Political Opportunity….
1) Conferences in Montreal about Black ideology
2) After WWII = industrial boom/labour legislation changes + UN Charter + Black war service pride + America

Question 122

Emmanuelle Richez, Vincent Raynauld, Abunya Agi, and Arief B. Kartolo

Answer 122

Context:
Reaction to Bill C-38 and C-45 passed in 2012 by the Conservative Harper government with no consultation = changes to the Indigenous treaty rights policies + weakened environment impact assessments + interfered reserve land governance

What?

When?
2020

Thesis: Bills C-38 and 45 provided the political opportunity to create a social movement (political impact in House of Commons discussion) but failed to garner significant policy changes (bills passed + no new legislation) + resource mobility of social media changed the narrative but ultimately was unsuccessful

Argument:
Resource Mobilization…
1) Social Media mobilized protests + members’ finances
2) Outsiders > beneficiaries as social media was a framing strategy for public outreach
3) Harper met with indigenous leaders bc of Chief Spence’s hunger strike
4) Non-hierarchical nature of the movements because of social media prevented engagement with more institutionalized political leadership
5) Movement did not remain committed to the bills but also touched on MMIWG and the economy

Political Opportunity…
1) Delayed legislative change (many of these pieces of legislation were in the works before INM so they may have been completed anyway)
2) Party politics where the Conservatives were not keen on pushing for environmental change and you need MPs in the House of Commons to push for your bill in order for it to be successful
3) NDP resource that opposed Layton in 2012 and took on the issue
4) Availability/legitimacy of social media for MPs (some heard too late)
5) Gov jurisdiction over Indians and Reserves (s.91(24) Constitution)
6) House of Commons debates or legislative reviews

Question 123

The Judicial Role: Canada pre-1982 + Branches/Functions of Gov

Answer 123

3 powers of government:
(1) executive to implement the law
(2) legislature to make laws (parliament as sovereign = king, house of commons, senate) central governing institution
(3) judiciary (courts/jury) to adjudicate legal disputes as arbitrators (maybe the law that parliament passes is not clear or disagrees on the threshold that the rule applies)

Judges are not legislators (interpret not make laws)…
(1) Judges are constrained by laws (rule of law vs. men) as well because the legislatures can change constitutions which establish the limits of judicial power
(2) No strong form judicial (rights) review meaning court decisions cannot be overturned…no entrenched bill of rights meaning the government could remove it

Question 124

Why is the tree metaphors between the 3 branches of government false?

Answer 124

The 3 branches of government are portrayed as being part of the same organism but being separate. The metaphor works well for the American presidential system but not the Canadian Parliament because the executive and the legislative are combined.

Not branches but powers/functions (ER text argues for the tree metaphor)

Question 125

Counter-Majoritarian Difficulty

Answer 125

If we decide what the constitution means does the law then really constraint judges?

Part of the problem with strong form judicial review is that it can counter a Democratic majority = it is saying to the majority that your laws suck
Counter to majoritarian democracy/parliament and to some that is difficult (why are courts so much better at making moral decisions? The legitimacy of the court comes from other grounds of doing law well rather than being better than the legislature)

Question 126

Judicial Review (Strong vs. Weak Form)

Answer 126

Judicial review is where courts/judges review government actions

Pre-1982 weak-form judicial review and post is a mix

Strong form means judges have a lot of power = when courts say that something is unconstitutional that thing has no legal force or effect (courts can invalidate legislation if the legislation violates the constitution) = courts have the final say

Weak form is a declarative remedy (saying this is not good) allowing the government to respond (the government can choose to use the notwithstanding clause or not) = legislators have the final say and thus can overturn judicial decisions.

Question 127

If the law conflicts with the Charter who has the final say?

Answer 127

The court’s power derives from our trust (have no police force and requires us to comply, that is how the law works + relies on governments to enforce their decisions)

If you don’t like the government/law you get your will enforced in court or an election

Question 128

s. 52(1)

Answer 128

The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is…of no force/effect

(The courts get to decide this so this is the section that they point to to prove they are not out of their lane)

Question 129

The Notwithstanding Clause

Answer 129

s.33 in Part 1 of the Charter

Textual basis for weak form judicial review as legislatures (parliament or legislative assemblies) decide what rights mean and override court decisions. To invoke the clause legislatures have to say so and be deliberate about it = have to pass a motion about anything related to the rights set out in parts of the Charter but not all of the Charter (s. 2, 7-15).

33. (1) parliament/legislature declare the act shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in s.2 or 7-15 of the charter

s. 33(3) every 5 years te motion has to be renewed to represent accountability/certainty of action

s.33(4) declaration can be re-enacted (even if legislature says there is a 5 year limitation in s.33(5)

Question 130

Constitution Act, 1982: s.52, s.33

Answer 130

Inconsistent laws of no force or effect (invalid)

Constitutional or judicial supremacy?
The courts are on a leash in Canada because of the notwithstanding clause compared to the US
Outside the notwithstanding clause, there is a strong judicial form

Question 131

Precedent

Answer 131

stare decisis

Question 132

3 Models of Judicial Behaviour

Answer 132

(1) legal
(2) attitudinal
(3) strategic

Question 133

Legal Model of Judicial Behaviour

Answer 133

Judges’ decisions are constrained by the text, precedent (stare decisis), and the standards of legal reasoning (respecting the law and doing it in a good way) = this is the importance of codification because the words are limits (the right of life should mean something and if you put it into text it should constrain the judges)

Legal doctrines as checks on judicial activism but the problem is indeterminacy

Question 134

Attitudinal Model of Judicial Behaviour

Answer 134

(1) Judges vote their policy preferences
(2) Judicial activism = legislators in red robes
(3) Precedent/doctrines pose no real constraint on judges

Problems
(1) Can’t directly measure preferences = Judges are just like people and have preferences and have non-impartial rules so they make decisions to get to the outcomes that they actually like so they can make the law go wherever they want = law has no independent value so we need to understand judges independent preferences
(2) inferring preferences = judges don’t tell us what they really want bc they want to conserve their legitimacy so we have to estimate (if a liberal nominated them we guess they lean more left)

Question 135

Strategic Model of Judicial Behaviour

Answer 135

SCC decisions constrained by other actors…
(1) public position
(2) position of executive
(3) position of the legislature

judges have preferences but work with people or either pay attention to the preferences of people to get to the outcome = the public wants something else so the judge shifts towards them based on external preferences = attitudinal justices making decisions taking into account external preferences

Question 136

Courts and the Charter: Former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin

Answer 136

Her defence against judicial activism…
(1) judiciary is limited by constitutional text
(2) the living tree (Pearson’s case 1929)
(3) s.52 = judicial review is a power the people gave to the judiciary
(4) s.33 = limit on judicial power

Beverley was the most strategic justice ever = manipulating the law so that it looks like we are happy with it

Argument = The court is staying in its lane and is not an activist because we respect the text and if we are making more important decisions now we can do so because of s.52 + courts are always involved in rights review to a certain degree through judicial interpretation (the living tree where courts are allowed to take into account of things that mean today, not John A. Macdonald days) = reinterpretation of old laws to today’s standards

Question 137

F.L.Morton and Rainer Knopff

Answer 137

Who?
Conservatives (AB)

What?
Oppose former justice Beverly McLachlin’s argument that judges have not become a self-appointed legislature.

When?
2000

Thesis:
Judges have been taking more activist roles in interpreting the charter and have privileged positions on the left (socialists) more than on the right (conservatives)

Argument:
1) Argues against the legal model of judicial behaviour = texts do not constrain judicial discretion this is evident through the Charter revolution where traditional understandings of Charter values (pre-1982) do not constrain social reform behaviour

2) OG intents of framers do not constrain judicial interpretations (court lowered threshold of exclusion of evidence vs. legislature said exclusion only in extreme circumstances = R.v. Collins)

3) Purposeiv analysis used by court to justify policy innovations (deduce answers to interpretive qs from the broader purpose of the legal provision) = to discern purpose judges look at the evolving traditions of our society (what justice beverley says living tree of the Charter) = establish new rights if society calls for them + discover new meaning in constitutional principles

4) Easier for the legislature to overrule court decisions than Charter rulings (s.33 limits of s.2, 7-15)

5) More interest groups in Charter litigation bc SCC removed 2 of 3 barriers to court access (doctrine of standing and mootness)
A) Standing = person doesn’t like policy but not directly impacted by it (Morgentaler abortion case)
B) Mootness = require legal dispute to be live (not dead/resolved like M v. H reconciled when SCC ruled)
C) SCC made its decisions binding on lower court application (made dicta binding)

Question 138

Former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin

Answer 138

Who?
Former SCC chief justice, most strategic justice that the Canadian court has ever had.

What?
Judges overstepping into the role of the legislature with Charter interpretations.

When?
1999

Thesis:
Judges are not taking an activist role and if they wanted to could not do so because…
1) Legal model of judicial behaviour = constrained by text
2) Laws need to be updated with society’s needs (living tree)
3) s.52(1) given by the people
4) s.1 and s.33 Legislature’s limit on judicial power/Charter rights

Argument:
1) The court interprets legislation in a way that ensures the fundamental liberties of Canadians (pre-charter in common law) which the Charter entrenched

2) Legal model of judicial behaviour = limited by s. 1 of the Charter (rights can be limited by law so long as the limits are reasonable in a free/democratic society) + s.33 (legislative final say)

3) Judicial activism radical changes to the law) is not necessarily bad because it was a radical decision at the time when women were deemed “persons”

Political mirror model of judicial activism…
1) conservative view that decisions are activist if it doesn’t accord with one’s political viewpoint
2) liberal view that decisions are activist if judges use s.52(1) instead of setting aside the law (for the legislature to handle)
3) activist decisions due to result-oriented/agenda-driven judging (not true bc of impartiality + judicial consistency if not agenda driven)

Ways the Charter has changed Canadian society:
1) The way Canadians think/act about their rights
2) Increases the profile of the judicial branch (easier to challenged a law that violated your rights bc they are codified)
3) Awareness of rights mobilizes social movements and court challenges

Question 139

Institutions

Answer 139

Rules that structure public government

Policy change happens by people in institutions

Question 140

Is the notwithstanding clause democratic?

Answer 140

The notwithstanding clause use gives the government the first and last word on rights.

Judges have a role to play in democracy but what democracy means is that legislators get to decide things. Need to recognize agreements and disagreements about rights. It’s part of the job to come up with an understanding of what rights mean that can pass a parliament. To make decisions about rights over which we disagree. Judges have to be careful when substituting their own interpretations of the law to not interfere with the role of legislators. Judges are people too and they get decisions wrong too. Part of what legislatures do is decide on the limits of the right to religion and if you disagree get mobilized and throw that party out.

vs.

Majorities can be cruel. Just saying the majority wins is democratic is not enough as there must be some accounting for these decisions, especially in the context of a minority right. Legislators should not always have the last form. Argument for strong judicial reform against the tyrant majority.

Question 141

Presidential vs. Parliamentary Power

Answer 141

The way that executive and legislative power is designed within our central governing institution of parliament

Presidential = Presidential government (Obama) goes to the legislative chambers as the leader of the executive and in that sense the executive officer is is guest not a member of the legislative chamber
The executive is not part of the legislature

Parliamentary = PM is the leader of the executive but not only the leader of his majesty’s government but also the member of the House of Commons
The executive is a part of the legislature

Question 142

Westminster Parliamentary System

Answer 142

Dual Executive

Political and Permanent Executive

Question 143

The Political Executive

Answer 143

Political executive = PM (leader), Privy Council, Cabinet, Monarch

The Constitution Act of 1867 does not create the PM as a legal executive but the monarch.

The political executive is an advisory council to the monarch and the monarch can have anybody advise him (the privy council advises the monarch and the legal executive picks these people).

The legal advisor of the legal executive is the PM and his government/cabinet subgroup of the privy council.

Question 144

The Legal Executive

Answer 144

King Charles is our legal executive (governor general signs bills to give royal assent) = head of state

The legal executive will do what the PM and its cabinet say = responsible government.

Question 145

The Permanent Executive

Answer 145

Permanent executive = bureaucrats and public service set up to support cabinet and the PM and are responsible to their minister

Question 146

What does the PM decide?

Answer 146

(1) the structure of the cabinet
(2) the structure of cabinet
(3) senior public service appointments
(4) his/her staff

Question 147

Cabinet

Answer 147

The cabinet is part of the executive and is a subcommittee of the privy council which is selected by the PM

It is his majesty’s political advisors/ministers

The PM + his advisors = advise the legal executive

Question 148

What are the central agencies?

Answer 148

PCO, PMO, department of finance, and treasury board

Question 149

Privy Council Office (PCO)

Answer 149

Headed by the clerk of the PCO = top bureaucrat/public servant John Hannaford (when the party changes he still has his job)

Core duties:
(1) The PM’s District Magistrate (DM)
(2) Secretary to Cabinet
(3) Head of the federal public service

• coordinate gov
• objective non-partisan public policy advice (advise cabinet)
• maintain cabinet records

Appointed by the governor general legally but in reality by the PM

Question 150

Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)

Answer 150

Source of partisan/political advice to the PM
(1) chief of staff
(2) policy advisors
(3) appointments
(4) communications
(5) PM’s agenda
(6) link with the gov caucus

balance must be struck between the PMO/PCO = If the PM wants impartial advice he goes to the PCO if he wants hacker advice he goes to the PMO

Question 151

PCO vs. PMO

Answer 151

PCO is the group that supports the Cabinet/Cabinet Secretary (politically neutral, will this policy work?)

PMO provides political advice to PM (not neutral, will this policy get you more voters?)

Question 152

Department of Finance

Answer 152

Statutory basis: financial administration act

In charge of developing the country’s macro economy policy (like the immigration reading)
(1) Fiscal policy
(2) economic forecasting
(3) preparation of budgets
(4) sets overall economic priorities of the fed gov

Develops regulations for the financials sector. Manages fed borrowing on financial markets. Manages transfer programs

The head of the department that you are overseeing (i.e., ministry of Finance overseeing the Department of Finance) and the top dog in that department is the deputy minister who is supposed to be non-political
The Department of Finance led by the Minister of Finance is in charge of developing the country’s macro-economic policy or fiscal policy (what are the taxes and what should they be? + transfer payments + budget preparation + moving money between levels of government)

Question 153

Treasury Board

Answer 153

Treasury board: a committee of cabinet

If finance sets financial policy, then treasury board cutes the cheques.

Its president is the chief operations officer

Treasury board secretariat is the bureaucracy that supports Treasury board

Tasks:
(1) Involved in budgetary process
(2) Personnel and administrative management
(3) Financial accountability
(4) Approving regulations

Both the treasury board and the Ministry of Finance are about money
Finance is about planning money but is not about spending
To spend money you need treasury board approval
The sub-committee of the cabinet is the Treasury Board
You have to understand this if you are a lobbyist because you must know who the minister is and who the people giving advice about these kinds of things at the highest level are, the deputy minister, and the various levels of the upper public service
We are highly executive-dominated in Canada (talk to the deputy minister) vs. US Congress has power over policymaking

Question 154

Line Departments

Answer 154

Organizations that advise ministers on their various policy responsibilities

Headed by a deputy minister:
(1) advise the minister
(2) implement ministerial initiatives
(3) manage the department

Fed departments:
(1) health
(2) crown-indigenous relations
(3) immigration, refugees, and citizenship
(4) fisheries and oceans
(5) veterans affairs

Question 155

Savoie and the Rise of Court Government

Answer 155

Talks to changes in the distribution of power in Canadian federal institutions. Argues that there has been a rise in court government (the king and his court not judges)

First shift: parliament has lost out to the political executive (power shifted from the legislature to the cabinet/PM)

Second shift: from within the executive, power has shifted from cabinet as a whole to the PM and selected ministers/advisors (central agencies run the show now)

Key courtiers:
(1) minister of finance
(2) clerk of the privy council
(3) PMO
(4) treasury board

Question 156

Donald Savoie

Answer 156

What?
The Rise of Court Government (king and his court not the judiciary)

When?
1999

Thesis:
1) First shift: parliament has lost out to the political executive (power shifted from the legislature to the cabinet/PM)
2) Second shift: from within the executive, power has shifted from cabinet as a whole to the PM and selected ministers/advisors (central agencies run the show now = minister of finance, treasury board, PCO, clerk/PMO)

Argument:
Court government started in with Pierre Trudeau in the late 1990s (PM > Cabinet, and expanded roles of the central agencies)

1) Trudeau did not confer with deputy ministers to prepare proposal and submit it for consideration in the gov’s decision making process (instead initiated the Trans-Canada highway, conference on economic future of Atlantic Canada, Meech Lake/Charlotte Town Accords) = PMs can only be stopped/slowed by the force of public opinion(as long as they want to keep running in the next election)/cabinet or caucus revolt = The caucus can boot the PM out of office but this is not done in Canada because there is little in the way of internal institutional checks to thwart the PM + the central government in Ottawa is favoured

2) Trudeau enlarged the PMO as not only advising but serving (can challenger a cabinet minister bc they are not only serving the PM but can be engaging in policymaking like drafting PM speech)

3) 1997 PCO role changed
(A) PM’s deputy minister provides advice and support to the PM
(B) Secretary to the Cabinet provides advice and support to the Ministry + oversees the provision of policy + Secretary to Cabinet
(C) Head of public service advice and service to the PM, ministry and all Canadians

4) All have a link to the PM as the PM uses these goaltenders to cover up errors that the media pick up + allow the centre to concentrate on policy objectives

5) Herculean effort to coordinate the government machine so the PM selected individuals in key positions to push the agenda (Pierre Trudeau ad hoc group 1983 peace initiative) = results in no more important decisions made in cabinet because the PM calls the shots (now made in federal-provincial meetings of first ministers)

Question 157

Lobbying

Answer 157

The verb to lobby, meaning to seek to influence a politician or public official on an issue derives from the practice of frequenting the lobby of a house or legislature to influence its members into supporting a position.

Question 158

Snow Park Inauguration

Answer 158

8-year-old was successful in influencing public policy choices in 2009 but was not a lobbyist because he wasn’t payed according to the act regulations.

The child wanted a snow park so he did his research and put together a 50 paged file and got signatures = putting together a policy dossier and building a mobilized constituency that he can point to (the signatures)
The lobbyist managed to have good timing because when he showed up with his dossier when the government was in its budgeting exercise wondering how to spend the winter activities budget
Building a constituency, providing policy-relevant info to policymakers, and good timing

Question 159

What determines lobbying success?

Answer 159

(1) being there and developing relationships
(2) mutual interest
(3) providing useful info
(4) demonstrating that there is an attentive/mobilizing constituency
(5) support of the target/client group
(6) timing

Lots of money involved, questions of equity, etc = ick factor of lobbying
Maybe not all lobbying activity is not bad but serves an important purpose
Our policymakers need to have information and engage with stakeholders/people affected by public policy

Question 160

Good Lobbying

Answer 160

Not all interests in society are represented in Parliament: need to access (bureaucratic) policymakers outside of political party structures

The public is served through sound policy development:
interest groups provide valuable info the government can’t/won’t generate. Consultation with interest groups is required.

Question 161

Capture Theory

Answer 161

Interest groups with ressources will capture policy actors

Question 162

Bad Lobbying

Answer 162

(1) Capture theory
(2) private not public interest
(3) any info that may be provided is slanted/incomplete
(4) don’t represent “the grassroots” but astroturf
(5) real/perceived conflicts of interest

We are worried that what develops is not public policy but private policy masquerading as public
The public interest is not served but what is done by policymakers is to serve rich and well-organized corporations
Lobbying policy is not a redistributive policy = take from the rich and give to the poor
But what we are worth about is that it is not transparent so lobbying legislation regulates the secrecy of the activity, not the activity itself
If you make the process of seeking influence public then you can check up on people

Question 163

The Lobbying Act of 2008 (Legal Definition of Lobbying)

Answer 163

Manage the cons while not unduly hampering the ability of policymakers to consult

“Communication with a public office holder by a paid indv on behalf of any person/organization with respect to…”
(1) the development of any legislative proposal
(2) introduction/passage/defeat/amendment of bills/resolutions in parliament
(3) the making/amendment of any regulation
(4) the development of public polices/programs
(5) the awarding of grands/contributions/financial benefits
(6) awarding crown contract

Manage the cons and create a framework that shines a light on that + not create a regulatory framework that places burdens on those interactions (lobbyists with people in power in Ottawa) = strike a balance
Define terms/conditions under lobbying that become subject to the rules (lobbyist, lobbeyee, and what they are talking about)
Which person seeking influence falls under the statutory framework, which person who is being contacted do we care about and for what purpose
Lobbying is communicating with a public office holder for a certain purpose = we care if the federal government will spend money on it or if it has something to do with the legislative (we don’t care if the PM and a lobbyist talk about hockey, so the type of communication matter)

Question 164

Who is a lobbyist?

Answer 164

(1) Paid, not a volunteer
(2) Consultant lobbyist
(3) In-house lobbyist

Payment is not necessarily money but is something of value that the lobbyist receives for their services
If you are doing it pro bono the government does not consider you a lobbyist
Consultant lobbyist = consulting company whose job it is to have people on staff and if you have an issue to be dealt with in Ottawa you go to the body shop (the company) and hire a lobbyist
In-house lobbyist = does the lobbying for himself or the company (their employer)
The president of McGill’s part of his job is to influence public office holders and has to register and tell us who he is meeting in Ottawa

Question 165

Who is a (designated) public office holder?

Answer 165

POH
1) MPs and senators and their staff
2) Cabinet/ministerial appointees (except judges)
3) Officer/employee of any federal board/commission/tribunal
4) Member of the Canadian armed forces and RCMP

DPOH
1) Ministers and their staff
2) Leaders of the opposition and staff
3) Deputy ministers
4) Associate/assistant deputy ministers

POH = public office holders
DPOH = designated public office holders
Given Canada is so executively dominated we care more about members of parliament and people in the central agencies and the upper levels of the permanent executive (these people are the DPOH) = worried about top bureaucrats

Deputy ministers are not politicians they are part of the permanent executive (a top public servant in a department) vs. Ministers are members of the cabinet

Question 166

Lobbyist Requirements

Answer 166

Lobbyists have to be registered with the office of the commissioner of lobbying.

Reporting requirements for lobbyists.

Restrictions:
(1) 5 year post-employment ban
(2) prohibition on contingency fees
(3) penalties for non-compliance

Signing up is a publicly searchable database
Report your meetings too = monthly report with a POH or DPOH
Canada has the most restrictive conditions placed on lobbyists
5-year post-employment ban = any POH/DPOH has to sit out (cannot lobby) until 5 years after their employment = revolving door lobbying
Lobbyists are on a per-hour pay basis and cannot do contingency fees (once you win me that contract you get paid)

Question 167

Maxime Boucher

Answer 167

What?
Dependent variable (what he wants to explain) = access (who gets into the door of Canada that is highly executive dominant)(interested in the central agency of the PMO so who gets in to see them?)

When?
2018

Hypotheses (only H3 correct)
H1 = organizations that hire former bureaucrats and politicians have better access to the prime minister and his or her office (revolving door lobbyists)
H2 = organizations that hire consultant lobbyists have better access to the prime minister and his (or her) office.
H3 = most active lobbying organizations have better access to the prime minister and his (or her) office (# of lobbying contacts and the scope of lobbying campaigns).

Terms:
In-house lobbyists = representing in exchange for a salary
+
Consultant lobbyists = consult firms for political advice/lobbying services in exchange for contract payment
OR
Revolving door lobbyists = former POHs

Findings:
1) legislative lobbying seems to have a positive effect on political access to executive officials (and vice versa) = lobbying spillover
2) The majority of lobbying organizations are corporations and trade associations = business interest are the mosts active lobbies
3) The threshold effect is seen both in the amount and scope of lobbying campaigns = as the number of lobbying contacts with executive and legislative bodies increases, the number of lobbying contacts with the PMO increases as well but, after a certain number of contacts, it is unsure if conducting more lobbying activities will have a positive impact on an organization’s access to the PMO

Conclusion:
SOCIAL DIMENSION OF LOBBYING»»
1) Is not just a simple story that big corporations are always in a better position
2) Title of its about who you know in the PMO is not true its about talking to the most ppl as possible (not only central agencies) will get you in the door (bring new info to PMO bc you talk to more ppl than them)

Question 168

How are social, political, and legal changes (inter)related? Can be abandoned? Social movement/interest group choices: which strategies?

Answer 168

Social
1) Consciousness raising/protest
2) Community Approach

Legal
1) Legal scholarship
2) Directed litigation
3) Intervener (amicus curiae)
4) Judicial appointment

Political (related to political governance)
1) Electoral competition
2) Lobbying POH
3) Public Protest

*Lobbying elites is both social/political

The political is more related to political governance institutions like electoral competition
Lobbying elites = social + political
Legal change is publishing legal journals
When you try to change precedent having cases that come to court with a strong fact situation = support this case through the judicial process = Justice is not free but expensive to develop that kind of litigation and see it through
Friend of the court is where courts invite parties that are not the actual litigants of the case to develop an argument and bring to the court arguments from people that are outside of the case but have a view on the political impact of the case = intervenor = repeat player as friends of the courts (legal strategy)
Judicial appointment = changing the bench/direction of the law so you lobby for who should be on the bench = changing the law is changing who sits in the chair
SCC judges have done a good job of not being partisan compared to the United States (not leaning Liberal or Conservative) = de-politicized court
Only since 1982 do we have strong judicial reform unlike the United States

Question 169

Evolution/Discrimination of the Unemployment Law Timeline

Answer 169

Employment law coming out of the 1930s labour movement

S.91(2a) added which gives the federal government jurisdiction concerning unemployment insurance = later passed the act in 1940

An act of social insurance = if you are employed you pay into a fund so that if your employment runs out you can apply for benefits (supplement income when unemployed for a good reason)

Job loss must be involuntary but benefits are only afforded if you are available and able to work (job searching). This means that preganant women cannot apply for benefits because their loss of employment is not involuntary but they are not able to work = male breadwinner model

Between 1940 and 1960 there was a jump in women’s labour force participation after the post-war period and the expansion of economies + the rise of social movement politics/unionized labour and women’s movement + more demands for the government to legislate concerning women who they did not think of in their 1940s legislation

The federal government amended its Unemployment Insurance Act in 1971 to provide for the possibility that pregnant women in the workforce have access to unemployment benefits even if pregnant

Question 170

Unemployment Insurance Act s.30, s.46

Answer 170

s.30(1) = provides for the possibility that women who are pregnant can apply for benefits under the act and is tied to weeks of pregnancy = here are a bunch of provisions that allow for a pregnant person to get benefits if conditions are met

S.46 = subject to s. 30 here are the conditions where you don’t get benefits if you meet these conditions

You have to be already working when you get pregnant (10 weeks before and after the period) = to make sure that you are not unemployed and start looking for a job all of a sudden when you get pregnant = so you need a “magic 10” to get benefits
You cannot get benefits when you are not available for work (i.e., when the baby comes) = even if a person is pregnant they must still be available and able to work
So s.46 decreases the amount of benefits available to you if you had not been pregnant

Question 171

Judicial Deferrence

Answer 171

Judges deferring to parliament

Question 172

Feminism in the Courts: Formal Equality

Answer 172

Bill of Rights
Stella Bliss = pregnancy discrimination is sex discrimination

SCC (1979) No it’s not
- Judicial deference
- Formal equality = treat likes alike + allows the perpetuation of systemic group-based discrimination

Stella Bliss is a British immigrant who found a job in Vancouver while in England she and her husband have visa problems and by the time it is sorted out the job is no longer on the table and are now unemployed in Vancouver
At that time Bliss was pregnant and didn’t know and got a job at the dealership at 6 weeks pregnant = she did not employ the company because she was not planning to quit but got fired when she started showing (illegally) to get her job back and is fired gain
Denied benefits in s.30 because she was not employed at the time time of conception (10-week requirement)
Under s.46 was barred from arguing that her job meant that those were allowable earnings even when farther along in her pregnancy and when the child was born (because not “available” to work)
Claims discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and sex under the Bill of Rights 1960 = number of grounds where the federal government cannot discriminate against a person which includes sex (but not entrenched in the Constitution)
Pregnancy discrimination is discrimination under sex so thus it is discrimination under the Bill
The Labour movement backs her case and the women’s movement gives financial and legal support beyond what she can provide
SCC in 1979 agreed with discrimination on the basis of pregnancy but not sex and that parliament had a reasonable legislative objective in writing s.30 and 46 in the way that they did so the court owes the legislature deference because it is not the court’s role to re-write the unemployment insurance act
The decision comes down to what is equality
Formal equality = as long as you treat alikes alike (similarly situated in the same way) = procedural sameness to individuals within a class/group meets the formal equality standard
Court says they are not getting in the business if defining a group is good or bad because once you define it you have to treat every member in that group the same = not every woman gets pregnant = once you define a group you can’t treat people differently within the group
Judicial deference = judges deferring to parliament
There may be discrimination on pregnancy but as long as you treat pregnant women the same you are fine = not all federal statutes have to apply to all persons the same
Legislation dealing with a particular class of people is valid if it is enacted for the purpose of achieving a valid federal objective

Question 173

Political Mobilization

Answer 173

The catalyst for women’s lobby and target parliamentarians (weak form judicial review) = don’t need to target court because they said what they needed to say so you need to change the legislators
By 1979 women’s lobbying pushing the federal government for amendments to the act
1980: Liberal government announces a task force on UI (Pierre Trudeau) = task force recommends repealing s. 30 and s. 46 of UI Act
1982 UI Act amended

Question 174

Political and Legal Mobilization

Answer 174

Women’s constutitional lobby: 1980-1982

s.15 equality clause = equal protection/benefits + s.15(2) ameliorative program

s.28 = sex equality outside of the reach of s.33

Legal Mobilization = LEAF (Legal education and action fund)

Change on the bench = Bertha Wilson (1982) + Claire L’Heureux-Dubé (1987) + the great dissenter

The women’s lobby is now motivated and sees the possibility of an entrenched bill of rights as strong from judicial review so if there is a new equality provision the feminist movement is interested in getting different language in an entrenched bill of rights than the language that existed in the bill of rights = language that would require judges to understand equality being a formal standard = not just equal treatment but the equal benefit of the law
Not just social movements but feminist lawyers are involved too

Question 175

s.15 Constitution Act

Answer 175

Subsection 1 = equal protection/benefit under the law = require judges to abandon simple equality approach for substantive equality

s.15(2) = s.15(1) does not prevent ameliorative programs for disadvantaged individuals

Subsection 2 = no sex discrimination = in response to what Canadian legal scholars see in the USA where any affirmative action programs are also discriminatory and are not allowable = language cuts that argument out so the court can not say affirmative action programs are discriminatory (i.e., women’s movement) = the state can discriminate on these grounds but only for the purpose of ameliorating the disadvantaged Notwithstanding clause applies to section 2, 7-15 and can be applied to the s.15 provision and can take the sex provision in s.15(2) and moves it to a section where the notwithstanding clause cannot apply

Only see litigation after 1985 about this so lobbying for women on the SCC = appointment for Birtha Wilson the first female member of the bench
First s.15 cases where the court has to interpret what equality means face a new constitutional framework

Question 176

Political and Legal Mobilization 1982-1989

Answer 176

1983 = Royal Commission on Equality in Employment = Rosalie Abelia submits report to Floara Macdonald, Min. of employment in 1984

1986 Employment Equity Act = equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures/accomodations of differences

Royal Commission = liberal government appoints Rosalie (later SCC member) as the commissioner and submits report to the female minister of employment who is part of the conservative Mulroney government = recommendations or the government when decision g its own policy such as to adopt substantive equality
Amend Employment Act in 1986

Question 177

Substantive Equality

Answer 177

Substantive Equality = equality must be concerned with substantive impacts + equal benefit/protection requires judges to analyze impact of law

Andrews v. Law Society of BC (1989) = LEAF as an intervener + first s.15 case + Bertha Wilson writes the majority opinion

Brooks v. Canada Safeway (1989) overturned

First s.15 case comes to the SCC = formal vs. substantive quality
Substantive quality = what it means to be equal has to go beyond equal treatment = even if a law is neutral the equality analysis has to go beyond it to understand the impact of that law = not only formal neutrality but analysis of there is neutrality in impact
If neutral laws impact one group more than another then the substantive analysis says that it is not equality
Andrews v. Law Society of BC = UK lawyer citizen who wants to practice in Canada and has been barred based on national origin and says this is discrimination under substantive analysis of equality under s.15
Friends of the court submit their argument based on an invitation from the court = LEAF (organized Bay Street female lawyers and are doing it pro-bono with a legal infrastructure behind them)
Wilson adopts a substantive equality analysis and Andrews can practice law in Canada
Brooks’ case of 3 women who work at Safeway and became pregnant in the case of their employment = is about their group health plan not about unemployment insurance = one of the terms of the pay is that you are not eligible for the benefits under the open if during the time during g your health problem you are pregnant even if the pregnancy has nothing to do with your health problem (hand mangled in bread cutter not effects if you were pregnant at the time)
Some benefits under the unemployment insurance plan but the benefits are less than under the Safeway health plan bring the case to the Human Rights Commission in Manitoba
Discrimination based on pregnancy and sex

Question 178

Brooks v. Canada Safeway (1989) Why did this happen?

Answer 178

SCC now says that discrimination based on pregnancy is also that of sex
The labour market has changed so much in the last 10 years (not true) that the analysis under Bliss needs to be overturned
Conservative and Liberal governments have no distinction on this issue but on trade

Discrimination against some women (pregnant ones) should not be treated differently than discrimination against all women = characteristic unique to one sex
Justice Ritchie argued that pregnancy was not included because of equal treatment of women to that of men but is ultimately not valid because partial discrimination is still discrimination

Why did this change happen?
Constitution changed with the charter = equal benefit of the law is now entrenched = under the bill of rights that is not entrenched courts have to give m per deference to parliament but this is not the case after = strong judicial review
Societal shift (more labour force participation) + Lobbying
Representation of women in courts = attitudinal model
Royal Commission = maybe the courts following what the governments are doing

Andres case was the first s.15 case that went to the SCC setting the precedent on how the SCC would come to interpret equality under the new constitution

Question 179

Immigration Policy Change: From Race and National Origin to Skills and Merit

Answer 179

1962: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Ellen Fairclough) passes new regulations = allowing landing of a person by reason of his education, training, and other special; qualifications

1967 Regulations amended to introduce points system for independent (economic) immigrants

1976 Immigration Act = earlier and/more comprehensive policy shift than in Australia/USA

The shift away from explicit race based/national origin policy happened faster/ealier than the USA and Australia
This shift starts in the 1950s but by the 1960s
1962 minister = immigration decisions will be made on education…
1967 more regulations to introduce the points system
The shift to merit and skills happened through ordering council/implementing policy before the act was amended = the rules were changed and after that the legislation was changed = bureacrats (the executive) could discriminate (allowed to) but didn’t have to but after 1976 by statute they could no longer do so (no more discretion)
Legislature follows the permanent executive (so who’s boss?)

Question 180

Canadian Immigration policy s.3(f)

Answer 180

s. 3(f) any person who seeks admission to Canada is subject to standards of admission that do not discriminated

Question 181

Why did this change happen?

Answer 181

Standard Account:
1. (+) post WWII rise of human rights, UN Human Rights Deceleration + Bill of Rights 1960
2. (+) Canada’s international position based on being “good”
3. (+) economic expansion and high demand for skilled labour
4. (+/-) Lobbying (specific ethnic groups vs. unions
5. (-) High level immigration officials resist the policy change

Courts? Not really = no SCC decision on immigration on Bill of Rights grounds

The standard account = global rise in human rights story coming out the hollocost and WWII and the UN decleration signed in 1948 = Diefenbaker then passes in 1960 the bill of rights (human rights movement started internationally and trickled down into the states)
All democratic countries had to do tis so it does not explain the shift or the timing of the state (this is what the author argues)
Canada did this shift faster because of the foreign policy startegy as a middle sized fish = instrumental international force exertion = external pressure
Economic story where our labour market is expanding post-war and there is global competition for skilled labour so demand is greater than preference
Lobbying story with the increasing size with the ethnic communities that also want to bring theur families
But the union movement is not really in favour of liberalized immigration
1940s-50s high-level immigration officials are not that keen with moving away from the OG policy (but this was not the end of the story according to the author)
No big SCC decisions on immigration decided on bill of rights ground and if they went to court they were decided in the government’s favour because the legislature gave the executive discretion (bill of rights weak)

Question 182

Elrick Policy Implementation by the Executive

Answer 182

Elrick’s Argument: Need to take a closer look at executive policy implementation

Regulatory change predates legislative change in 1976

Question 183

Immigration Act, 1952

Answer 183

1st major revision of Immigration Act since 1910

Race and national origin not listed in prohibited classes but s.61 gives the power to make regulations (huge executive discretion to implement policy)

s.39: Courts can’t review deportation cases

Immigration Act of 1952 = 1953 is the first major revision of the act since 1910 (post WWII/UN declaration)
The legislation does not exeplictly say that race and nationak origin are prohibited it has gone from expeclity racist to silently so by dlegating discretion to the executive (the governor in council mat make regulations in s.61 of the immigration act specifically on race g(i))
No deportation cases coming to the SCC because the legislature says these cases cannot come to the courts so they are withdrawn from judicial review (s.39)
The legislature defines the jurisdiction of the court (normal) especially since with didn’t have our own constitution at the time of the BNA Act = we are still executively dominated today

Question 184

Immigration Regulations 1963

Answer 184

Sets out norms of admissibility partly terms of national origins

Admissibility = f(national origin, employment, family sponsorship)

1953 Minister can make admission decisions in cases of exceptional merit

Result
1) Discretion by low-level immigration officials
2) many indv case decisions made by high level bureaucrats in Ottawa (director of immigration + deputy minister of citizenship and immigration)

Minister of immigration sents out regulations of norms of admissibility 1953
Now not just about national origin but it still is a factor among labour market and families (sponsor your uncle and bring him over) = decision making takes into account all of these things
In cases of exceptional merit we accept them in but it doesn’t define merit
The result is fluid decision making where the low level bureaucrats kick these files upstairs so that high-level bureuacrats make these decisions

Question 185

Boundary Work

Answer 185

Case by case policy experimentation

Merit from innate group characteristics to individuals actions (Elrick: middle class values)

Bureaucrats are shaping the nation through boundary work
As bureaucrats are making these discretionary changes the demographic starts varying tarting with the 1960s
Merit becomes middle class values (Elrick)

Question 186

Admission Decisions and Deportation Appeals

Answer 186

Admission Decisions: the negatively racialized often granted admission on the basis of middle class values/exceptional merit

Deportation appeals: most often involved the positively racialized where allowed to stay on the basis of middle class values

Immigration officials are managing race/national origin through personal assessment of class/value

Her argument si by making tehse decisions the bureucracy with their discretion is trying to weight the importance of criteria and trying to figure out their intersection of these criteria when picking out ine immigrant over the other = inetrsectional analysis
“We like irish over jaimaicans but it we want to pick jamaicans which criteria should we look for among them?”
Those who apply for admission and are negativeluy racialized are granted admission over their ability to fit in to the middle class values vs. deportation is for those who are positively racialized (this person did something that would get them kicked out but they come from a nice family and have economic skills so they fit within the middle class and they can stay) = boundary shaping
If race is a social contruct then it is something that everyone has so we must look at merit (conditional on racialization and the valence put on it, the decision is always conditioned/in addition to the middle class values) = being engatively racialized doesn’t tell you everything you need to know so middle class values are added on top like a second level

Question 187

Skills and Merit Definitions

Answer 187

Skills = abilities and what you can do (economic)

Merit = Are you a good person/value (personal assessment)

Question 188

Immigration Act, 1976

Answer 188

Regulators barred from using race/national origin as a basis for policy implementation

Universalism entrenched in legalisation

Regulatory practices serves as basis for legislative reform

Telling a story about a shift made by thousands of bureaucratic decisions where bureucrats got coinfortable with building a new diverse canada in a way that will help the economy and build a middle class and that therefore Canada didn’t need to realy on race and natonal origin as criteria anymore
Bureucrats are now advising the legislature to barre the executive from using race and nationality as a criteria anymore
Her story about the timing is taht it cant be an external pressure story and instead has to be internal story (bureaucratic one) = faster than US and Australia because the people with the power were calling the shots as all the files were being kicked upstairs
The labour market works as an external and internal story because it is a global competition

Question 189

Jennifer Elrick

Answer 189

What?
How do you explain the transition from racialize foreign policy to one based on skills (economic abilities) and merit (middle-class values)? = boundary work of executive bureaucrats due to the discretionary freedom given by the legislature

When?
2020

Thesis: 1952-1962 boundary work by executive bureaucrats allowed for low-risk policy experimentation of the intersectionality of race and class that led to systematic policy shift to merit in 1967 leading to legislative change in the 1976 Immigration Act.

Definitions:
Boundary work → Boundary work focuses on the terms in which everyday people draw socioeconomic, cultural, and moral distinctions between themselves and others and thereby create symbolic and material systems of stratification (national selves vs. immigrant others)

Argument:
FACTORS IN POSTWAR POLICY CHANGE…
1) Macro-level factors = economic growth creating a skilled labour shortage (racial to human capital criteria) + World-Society Theory (global social change that emphasizes the importance of global institutions that affect nation-states like the UN Declaration)
2) Meso-level (branches of state) factors = no significant economic/military power so international relations motivated foreign policy = Canada did not want to mirror the racial tensions in UK/America + racialized poverty but still needed to admit negatively racialized groups to improve their international status (made race from a nationally divisive to nation-building principle through changing group to individual assessments = manage race)
3) Micro-level (state actors) factors = policy stretching by bureaucrats to maintain the racialized status quo as long as possible until meso and macro-level pressures caused a shift

Admissions (middle-class values > racial undesirability) vs. Deportation (middle-class values > racial desirability)

Question 190

Carbon Pricing

Answer 190

Carbon pricing is a tool for politicians

1) Carbon cap and trade
Cap and trade = you put a price on CO2 by setting a limit on emissions so therefore you have a permit to emit up to a certain limit. At some point, you count your emissions and if you are over the limit you need to acquire permits and if you are below you have permits that you haven’t used. If you are a pulp mill and have leftover permits you try to sell them to an entity that goes over their limit (emission trading). You set a limit on emissions and let the market set the price of the permits creating a permit market = creates an incentive to do less because it is expensive to renovate a coal emission to produce less CO2 compared to a pulp mill, but that’s not a problem because the plant can buy permits. Conservatives would see this as a good thing as it is a non-government heavy-handed thing but the market that sets the price. This is not a bad way for big industrial players compared to households and individuals because no citizen will do the administrative work that is required. There is also an administrative financial cost to of hiring people to do this for you (like people who hire people to do their taxes).

2) Carbon Tax
Carbon tax sets the price and lets the market determine the emission. If I want to produce a lot of CO2 unlike the permit I can do so if I can afford it (so normal ppl make decisions to limit CO2 behaviour). The government’s job is not to measure the emissions but to set the price of carbon.

Question 191

Cap and Trade vs. Tax

Answer 191

1) Large (power generation) vs. small (you and me) emmiters
2) Administrative burden
3) Economic efficiency

Question 192

Good and Bad Carbon Tax

Answer 192

1) No exemptions
2) Revenue neutral

A good carbon tax changes our behaviour are no exemptions = we pay the carbon tax that is related to our fuel use in a reasonable way (not on some fuels but not others) we want a broad base tax + revenue neutral to the government = the whole point is to make it expensive to incentivize us to act, the point is not for the tax to be revenue neutral to us but for the government that gets money from the tax and re-invests it in another way to decrease other taxes that are not that economically efficient or invest in transit (not a revenue maker)
A policy is successful when people shift their behaviours so the carbon tax is good but it can create political problems in terms of questions of equity as it is structurally inflationary as our economy is based on fossil fuels/cheap energy = natural aversion to paying taxes period

Question 193

BC Carbon Tax

Answer 193

Passed in 2008 = 1st sub-national gov to do so

Northern BC = economci impact of tax not large but organized lobby by municiapl officials agaisnt the carbon tax

Southern BC/Lower mainalnd = carbon tax impact felt here the most but not much of an organized lobby by municipal officials

Dependent Variable = geograohic distribution of political organization/collective action (municipal officials)

BC is a sub-national government that has been an innovator in carbon taxes and was the first province to pass it
Economists agree that this is a good tax
Scholas trying to explain differences in behaviour by municipal officials in one part of BC compared to other BC = explain the difference in municipal officials’ behaviour across space
Northern impact of tax is not large in BC even if they have big trucks because they don’t commute as much but it is in Northern BC where the organized lobbying by political officials are the strongest = decent is strongest where the impact is the lowest (the opposite in Mainland BC)

Question 194

Explanations for BC Geographical Divisions

Answer 194

1) Theory of collective action (Olsen) predicts little organizing and rational ignorance

2) Rational choice = elective incentive of elected officials

3) Ideational = world views/preconceived ideas + good policy motives

4) Institutional

The theory of collective action predicts little organizing in any case as the individual impact of the tax is so small that the cost of organizing against it does not make sense from a rational actor point of view so the Olsen framework does not explain the BC phenomenon
Other rational choice explanations of voting basis that people in the North care more and the officials are reacting to electoral pressure but this still doesn’t explain the geographic distribution
Ideational = Seeing the world differently in the North than in the South
Institutional structure that makes it easier to be decent in one place than another or maybe how municipal councils are shaped = but this is not obvious
The answer is the ideational

Question 195

BC Ideational

Answer 195

Regionalism is an important bias/predisposition

The ideational difference that they point to is a narrative of regional disadvantage and there is a narrative of regionalism that is not true in terms of the carbon tax but nonetheless, the argument is that municipal actors came to the north to decent because they had a particular world view that they were being punished by the tax for being northerners (like QC and the West)
The carbon tax is framed through alienation (attacking the northern way of life), not as a policy to reduce fuel use

Question 196

Zaller

Answer 196

1) Officials are biased sifter of info = discounting evidence on the basis of regional inequality/alienation bias

2) Tax is a dirty work + framing effect

The way we form an opinion about something has to do hat the kind of info we are exposed to (is it selective) and what are our predispositions.
Political actors amplify these narratives of regional biases + people don’t like taxes

Question 197

Harrison, Kathryn, and Chelsea Peet

Answer 197

Context
Northern Resistance to the Carbon Tax…
1) Colder in north so gas heating (evidence proves the contrary + prov fund for clean energy)
2) Bigger vehicles/distances (false)
3) Lower mainlanders have more opportunities/urban lifestyle

When?
2012

Compare the explanatory power of three theoretical approaches:
1. Olson’s theory of collective action (northern opposition + mainland inaction)
2. Rational choice theory (local politicians expressing their constituents’ interests)
3. Ideational theories influence of community identities formed long before the carbon tax policy (regional alienation)
Argument:
1. Olsen’s theory is false that voters will be expected to free-ride (political inaction + ill-informed) as that was not the case in the North but even there there was a lack of mobilization (regional differences)

2. Rational choice theory is that politicians are motivate by their desire to be re-elected (self-interest) + their position might be influenced by their allegiance to parties + stance reflects self-interests of constituents/voters (regional differences) = not true bc greater outcry from the ones least impacted + northern municipal politicians said carbon tax had little 2008 election impact bc its a prov not municipal policy + Mayor Scott Nelson went from leading the anti-carbon tax mov to seeking nomination from Liberal supporters + policy spillover where tax will encourage lower mainland transit
3. Deborah Stone Ideational Theories
   (a) world views/preconceived ideas = ideas vs. evidence rly important bc most idk the tax (political marginalization through regional pop imbalance + primary ressources exploitation + urban vs. rural)
   (b) good policy motives bc a lot of pollution in the lower mainland

Conclusion
The theory of collective action can account for both voters’ disapproval of, and lack of political engagement with, the carbon tax.
Rational choice theory can explain why local politicians would speak out on behalf of their constituents even in the absence of collective action on the part of voters.
However, the missing piece of the puzzle in both cases is why opposition was strongest in the north.
Community identities formed a century before the carbon tax was imagined manifested themselves in this new policy debate. A long-standing sense of alienation and exclusion among northerners was reignited by the tax, which struck at core aspects of the northern identity: cold weather, vast distances, and a resource-based economy.