political science , federalism

User Generated

fz288

Writing

Description

please look at attached files for complete information

- read the feedback in assignment 2 file to know what should be improved on in this one ( assignment 2 was given a grade of 60 which is very unfortunate )

- read guidelines for assignment 1

- read units 1 to 3 becuase showing knwoledge of course infomration is needed.



Unformatted Attachment Preview

Assignment 1 examines your ability to interpret and critically assess the course readings. It is worth 10% of your final grade for the course. You should begin this assignment at the same time you are working on Unit 3. Topic Write an essay of 750 to 1000 words (3 to 4 pages) that summarizes the reasons for either economic underdevelopment or regional alienation in Canada. Discuss which explanations seem most convincing to you, and give reasons why you hold this opinion. Your opinion should be expressed as a thesis statement and should appear at the end of your first or second paragraph. While most of the assignment can be completed using the resource materials below, you are expected to supplement these materials with additional evidence and more up-to-date materials. Two will do. You may use academic sources from the Athabasca University Library (see the resource materials listed below), or journal articles from online library databases. You may also use resource materials from the web, but you may not rely exclusively on web resources. Since the quality of material found on the Internet can vary dramatically, be sure to discuss the sites you have selected with your tutor before you proceed with your assignment. Refer to the “Tips on Writing Essays” section of this Assignment Manual for detailed instructions on preparing and submitting your assignment. Resource Materials Savoie, Donald. 2003. “Regional Development: A Policy for All Seasons and All Regions.” In New Trends in Canadian Federalism, 2nd ed., edited by François Rocher and Miriam Smith, pp. 353– 374. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press. Stevenson, Garth. 2004. “The Political Economy of Decentralization.” Chapter 4 in Unfulfilled Union, 4th ed., pp. 72–93. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. (Students beginning the course after January, 2011 will be using the 5th edition of Stevenson, published in 2009; the pages are the same.) Supplementary Materials Gibbins, Roger. 1998. “Federal and Regional Alienation.” In Challenges to Canadian Federalism, edited by M. W. Westmacott, pp. 40–51. Scarborough, ON: Prentice Hall. Savoie, Donald. 2006. Visiting Grandchildren: Economic Development in the Maritimes. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Young, Lisa, and Archer, Keith. 2002. Regionalism and Party Politics in Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Running head: THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY The Quebec Quest for Autonomy Sara Al-Marashdeh POLI390 Athabasca University 1 THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY 2 Comments : Sara, read through the comments in your essay for details. There are significant analytical and evidence-based problems with the effort here. I will accept this effort but you must give greater attention to the explicit question in future assignments and craft a thesis statement up front that will guide you as you write. If you are unsure, discuss it with me beforehand. Also, for a senior course in political science, your writing and grammar are a little "choppy." Work on this and proofread your assignments before you submit them. (By the way, it is strongly recommended that you complete your assignments in the order in which they appear. I do not have any record of a quiz or Assignment 1.) The Quebec Quest for Autonomy Introduction The deep split between the English speaking and French-speaking populations have been the cause of two failed referendums. While the differences between the French and English speaking populations have been dominant in both Quebec and Ontario, the voice for secession has been louder in Quebec. Today, Quebec is a home for more than 8.1 million Canadians, with 20% of the population being English speaking while the rest are French-speaking. (there are many allophones and bilingual individuals in Quebec) Apart from Quebec and the British Columbia, the French Canadians form a significant minority in every other province. Before the turn of the 21st century, there was a turbulent and violent relationship between the two groups in Quebec. Since the French felt that they did not gain their fair share of the economic cake of the country, besides feeling alienated and dominated by the English speakers in many of the other provinces, they have always harbored thoughts of secession. Twice, in 1980 and in 1995, Quebec THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY 3 has gone to the referendum with the aim of seceding from the rest of Canada. During the first referendum, the secession proponents lost by a reasonably large gap. However, in the 1995 referendum, the group lost narrowly (Lluch, 2010). √ referencing is important Dual nationality is a complex socio-political concept; especially that it is strange to the American way of thinking. In Canada, before a decision is made, there is due to be a consideration of its acceptance to both the French and English speaking groups. A wide range of social, political and religious factors have been responsible for the inability of Canada to reach an acceptable constitutional agreement over Quebec, and a solution looks like a pipe dream. √ good but briefly explain why here and then use the body of the essay to detail, support, and analyze developments – this is an essay largely about Meech Lake and Charlottetown so these should be part of your thesis However, when all the partied drop their hardline positions and engage in a constructive dialogue over the problems that Quebec faces, it is possible to get a solution to the challenges that Quebec faces. The foundation of Quebec Drive for Self-Determination The defeat of the French in Canada can be described as the foundation of the contemporary divide between the French and English speaking Canadians. After the defeat of the French, the Catholic Church advised the French living in Canada, including those residing in the French-dominated Quebec, to step back from the Canadian public life. With this advice, the Catholic Church aimed at helping to preserve French culture and religious practices. As the French-speaking populations retreated from the public life, they lost their space, and that increased the dominance of the English speaking Canadians over them. As the Anglophones advanced in areas such as business and politics in the society, the Francophone, even those in Quebec where they were the clear majority, retreated to life outside the public sphere, with the main aim of preserving their essentially agrarian life. In the long run, the Francophone group THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY 4 realized that they had been outpaced and marginalized. From this period, the relationship between the French and English speaking Canadians has not been cordial, not only in Quebec but throughout the country. (here is why a precise thesis is so important: what does the information in this paragraph have to do with “recent failures to achieve constitutional settlement agreeable to Quebec” or the chances of this in the future) In any society where a group feels that it does not have its rightful share, or where it feels that it is not being respected, resentment is likely to arise, and sometimes it is likely to be violent. In other provinces in Canada, French-speaking Canadians can live with the dominance of the English speaking groups since they are the minority. However, in Quebec, the French-speaking group is the majority, and they have decided to stand up and reclaim what they believe was taken away from them by the English speaking Canadians. Since the adoption of the federal systems of governance in Canada in 1867, there has been a strong sense of nationalism among the French-speaking Canadians in Quebec. the successive governments of Quebec have for many years believed that there the province is unique, that there is something special in Quebec which makes it feel like the home of the French-speaking Canadians, making it necessary for the French-speaking Canadians in Quebec to fight very hard to protect. There is an attachment that the French-speaking Canadians have with Quebec, especially with regards to culture and language and that makes it a primary interest for the French Canadians. Looking at the issues that the French Canadians had against the English speaking groups, it is essential to note that they are deep and they tough (touch?? – proofread your submissions before you submit them) on the very existence of society. The French Canadians feel threatened, THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY 5 and they seek to impose themselves and dictate their future. However, by the time when the French Canadians realized that they needed to rise up and reclaim their land, the English speaking group had already taken a central place in the management of the affairs of the country, even in Quebec where the French Canadians have a significant majority. Thus, when looking at the problem in Quebec, it is notable that the issues are so deep that it may require more than just a constitutional change for the French-speaking Canadian and the English speaking Canadians to live harmoniously. However, it is still necessary to have an understanding of the factors that have contributed to the failure to have an agreeable constitutional solution that would bring the Quebec problem to rest. The factors that contributed to the series of recent failures to reach a constitutional settlement that is agreeable to Quebec (this is the heart of the essay and you should get to it very quickly and not leave it until almost half-way through your essay – much of the foregoing, though mostly true, is not relevant to this essay) The deep divide between French-speaking Canadians in Quebec and English speaking Canadians is the primary factor that has made any possibility of an agreeable settlement very distant. Evidently, neither the French Speaking group nor the English speaking group has been willing to drop their hardline positions. For example, with the entry of the confederation, the government of Quebec made attempts to block intrusions into their jurisdiction. From this reality, it became evident that French-speaking Canadians are so determined to protect the province that they are capable of doing anything possible to protect their values and culture. Evidently, while English speaking Canadians are more likely to show a desire to engage in a discussion over the issues, the French-speaking group is not willing to have a serious engagement over the problems at Quebec (Niezen, 2016). Thus, from this end, it is evident that THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY 6 there is no genuine interest from both parties to be involved in the process of finding a suitable solution to the challenge. For there to be any meaningful disagreement over the attainment of an agreeable legal solution to the challenge, it is essential to have both parties willing to compromise. (explain where you see this unwillingness to compromise in recent attempts at constitutional settlement – you must provide evidence to support your claims) The difference in nationality among the residents of Quebec has enhanced the place of religion in Quebec. Religion is at the heart of many decisions that the French-speaking Canadians make. Most of the French-speaking Canadians have strong ties to the Catholic Church, and this fact had in a way had a tremendous contribution to the stalemate. On the other side, the English Speaking Canadians are largely Protestant, and that has had a significant impact on the actions of the people. In many instances where there is a strong religious sentiment among parties in a negotiation, it usually becomes very difficult to arrive at solutions that are agreeable to both parties. The French-speaking Canadians usually rely on their religious beliefs when making decisions. In these circumstances, it usually becomes difficult to arrive at meaningful legal decisions. It is important to note that legal matters should not be mixed up with religious considerations. Religion is a significant cause of conflicts and is a hindrance to the attainment of peace in some regions in the world. The strong desire by the French-speaking Canadians in Quebec to act according to their religious beliefs is a significant hindrance to the attainment of a legal solution. The quest for a legal solution to the Quebec problem has also been affected by the presence of the Aboriginal peoples in the land. The Aboriginals are not many, yet they form a significant portion of the Quebec population, and there is a need to consider their interests in the creation of a legal solution to the problem. The problem is that the Aboriginals have a cultural set THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY 7 up that is distinct from the cultural practices of the non-Aboriginal populations (Scott, 2011). The presence of the Aboriginals throws in another variable in an already complex equation. Thus, when developing a legal solution to the problem in Quebec, it would be necessary to make sure that there is a consideration of the interests of the French-speaking Canadians, the English speaking Canadians, and the aboriginals. Even by a stretch of the imagination, this would be a tricky affair even to the most skilled negotiators. Finally, the social and political forces that are at play in Quebec are massive, and they have been significant in the obstruction of any legal agreement over Quebec. Socially, the religion and culture of the French-speaking residents of Quebec have been major contributing factors while on the legal side, the Federal government of Canada has always demonstrated opposition to the idea of Quebec as an autonomous political entity. Like in any other secessionist idea, the central or federal government is always willing to go the extra mile to protect every inch of its territory. The situation in Quebec has a huge semblance with the situation in Catalonia where the Catalans have been demanding to secede from Spain, but the Spanish government is willing to do everything, including lethal force, to thwart the move (Gagnon, 2009). In this regard, it is notable that political forces have presented a situation which makes it difficult to arrive at an agreeable legal solution to the challenge. your reference to an example is a good idea but it has to be done within the context of the current assignment – have there been recent attempts to negotiate a constitutional settlement between Catalans and Spain that have failed From the discussion above, it is evident that there is a plethora of evidence to suggest that any process aimed at arriving at an agreeable legal solution is bound to fail. There are many forces that are at play such as the religious and cultural norms of the French-speaking Canadians in Quebec; the resistance by the political entities, as well as the interest of the Aboriginals make THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY 8 the attainment of a legal solution to the Quebec problem an incredibly difficult affair. To find a solution, it would be necessary to balance the interests of all these parties, something which is almost impossible. Is it reasonable to expect that an agreement can be reached? Where there is any conflict, it is essential to believe that there would always be a solution. As a matter of fact, there is always a solution to every challenge and conflict involving humans. There is no illusion whatsoever regarding the enormity of the challenges facing Quebec. However, while appreciating the enormity of the challenge, there is confidence that a solution is likely to be found in the near future. Firstly, one of the most important questions to consider is (whether??) the solution to the problem only exists in legal changes? After a critical examination of the differences and problems facing Quebec, it is safe to say that a solution rests not only on legal changes but simple administrative. The main problem in the issue is that the French Speaking residents of Quebec feel that they are the majority yet they are dominated by the minority English speaking Canadians. Thus, the quest for secession and constitutional change is largely driven by anger. It is possible to make administrative changes and give the government of Quebec more latitude to make decisions on matters affecting them. The importance of this change is that the French-speaking Canadians will feel that their rights are respected and that they are in charge of their destiny. (perhaps this is true but the question is whether there is a likelihood of a settlement being finalized and this is concerned with constitutional settlement) Although there are deep divisions, suspicions, and differences among the nationalities in Quebec, it is reasonable to expect that a solution would be obtained in the near future. However, the problems facing Quebec are more social than political, and that calls for the establishment of THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY 9 a system that would adopt more social and less legal approach in providing a solution to the problem. It is essential for the French-speaking Canadians to feel that they are in charge of their affairs and also that they are not dominated over by the English speaking Canadians. After establishing this environment, any other legal changes may be footed; but it is not possible for legal changes to succeed when there is an environment of hostility. References Gagnon, A. G. (2009). The Case for Multinational Federalism: Beyond the all-encompassing nation. Routledge. √ Lluch, J. (2010). How nationalism evolves: explaining the establishment of new varieties of nationalism within the national movements of Quebec and Catalonia (1976–2005). Nationalities papers, 38(3), 337-359. √ Niezen, R. (2016). Defending the land: Sovereignty and forest life in James Bay Cree society. Routledge. √ Scott, C. (Ed.). (2011). Aboriginal autonomy and development in northern Quebec and Labrador. UBC Press. √ Your effort here touches on some definite problems between French and English in Canada but there is not very much analysis on recent attempts to conclude a constitutional settlement and this is the central theme of the essay assignment. There is also a lack of proof for the claims that you make. Both would be a way to greatly improve the essay. Read over the question: THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY 10 Write an essay of approximately 2000 words (about 8 pages) explaining the factors that contributed to the series of recent failures to reach a constitutional settlement that is agreeable to Quebec. Is it reasonable to expect that an agreement can be reached? and then ask yourself, does my essay even begin to examine any attempts to reach a constitutional settlement and analyze these attempts with regard to the claims that you make about the problems. Making certain that your essays comply with the explicit instructions will normally produce much better essays. 60% 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide Unit 3 ­ Study Guide Unit 3 ­ Study Guide Site: Course: Book: Printed by: Date: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences POLI 390: Canadian Federalism_ May2010 Unit 3 ­ Study Guide Sara Al­Marashdeh Monday, 1 October 2018, 8:22 AM MDT https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 1/20 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide Table of contents Overview Learning Objectives Reading Assignment Commentary Centralization and Decentralization The Long­term Trend Explanations for Canada’s Evolution The Province­Building Debate Notes on Terms Study Questions https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 2/20 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide Unit 3 Regionalism and Province­ Building Overview Unit 3 continues the discussion from Unit 2 of changes in the responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments. The level of analysis broadens in this unit, however, focusing on the shifting balance of power within the Canadian federal system instead of on specific government activities. All federal systems possess a certain dynamic quality. As political institutions change and adapt to new circumstances, the original alignment of political forces that produced a federal union may be altered by events and forces totally unforeseen by that country’s founders. In Canada’s case, the federal system has evolved through various periods of centralization and decentralization. The study of Canadian federalism, therefore, requires both a knowledge of these periods and an explanation of the gradual erosion of federal dominance over the provinces. Conflicts between different economic classes, strong regional sentiments among the Canadian population, and “province­building” are often cited as factors that have contributed to a weakening of the federal government’s position. A fourth factor, Quebec nationalism, will be examined separately in Unit 4. TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 3/20 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide Unit 3 Regionalism and Province­ Building Learning Objectives When you have completed Unit 3, you should be able to achieve the following learning objectives. 1. Identify and discuss distinct periods of centralization and decentralization in Canadian history. 2. Discuss how Canada’s political evolution differs from that of most other federal states. 3. Identify and critique the various theories that have been put forth to explain the economic underdevelopment of the Atlantic region. 4. Discuss how economic underdevelopment in the four Atlantic provinces has conditioned their response to federal government initiatives and shaped their approach to federal­provincial relations. 5. Describe how the parliamentary system of government constrains the expression of regional differences and regional discontent. 6. Describe how the failure of intrastate federal institutions to provide adequate representation to regional interests led to the growing emphasis on interstate federalism. 7. Discuss how and why Canadian regional development policies evolved the way they did. 8. Describe how globalization will affect the political economy of Canada’s regions. TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 4/20 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide Unit 3 Regionalism and Province­ Building Reading Assignment Commentary for Unit 3. Chapter 4: “The Political Economy of Decentralization,” in Unfulfilled Union, 5th ed., by Garth Stevenson, pp. 72–93. Reading 1: “The Atlantic Region: The Politics of Dependency,” by Donald J. Savoie, in the Reading File. Chapter 13: “Regional Development : A Policy for All Seasons and All Regions,” by Donald J. Savoie, in New Trends in Canadian Federalism, 2nd ed., edited by Rocher and Smith, pp. 353–374. TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 5/20 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide Unit 3 Regionalism and Province­ Building Commentary A constitution provides a framework for the operation of a federal system of government. Even so, the original allotment of government responsibilities can change both formally and informally through time. The balance of power within a federal system, therefore, is constantly in flux, and it is this dynamic quality of federalism that makes governing difficult. Those constitutions and political systems that can adapt to change tend to endure for long periods of time; those that cannot are often discarded into the dustbin of history. In terms of stability and longevity, the Canadian federal system compares quite favourably to most other countries. The Canadian federal state has been in existence for 140 years now; only the United States and Switzerland have had federal governments for longer than that. Canada has not had any breakdown in its political regime, and there have been few serious threats to the legitimacy of Canadian government institutions. This is not to say, however, that Canadian federalism today is the same governmental arrangement envisioned by John A. Macdonald and the other Fathers of Confederation in 1867! The Canadian federal system has, of necessity, evolved and responded to new conditions and political crises. TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 6/20 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide Unit 3 Regionalism and Province­ Building Centralization and Decentralization At times, the balance of forces within Confederation has favoured the federal government in Ottawa—known as periods of centralization. Periods of decentralization refer to those times in which the power and influence of the provinces have increased relative to those of the federal government. The literature in Canadian political science identifies several historical periods in which the federal system has shifted between extreme political centralization and varying degrees of political decentralization. Perhaps the best description of the historical evolution of Canadian federalism is found in the writings of James Mallory. In an often­quoted essay, entitled “The Five Faces of Federalism,”[1] Mallory identifies four periods of centralization: (1) the Macdonald era (1867 to approximately 1890), when the quasi­federal powers of the federal government were used quite often; (2) World War I; (3) World War II, when the imperative of defending the country in time of national emergency made the division of powers virtually meaningless; and (4) the immediate period following World War II (1945 to about 1960), when federal spending power was used extensively to erect the Canadian social welfare state. Periods of decentralization were linked by Mallory to the so­called “provincial rights era” (1890–1914) and the interwar years (the 1920s and 1930s), when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council consistently favoured the provinces in its interpretation of the constitution; and the post­1960 period, when demands for constitutional reform and greater jurisdictional autonomy emanating from Quebec caused a re­examination of the roles of both levels of government. Since the publication of the Mallory article, the decentralist trend in Canadian federalism has continued with little interruption, fuelled by the demands of Quebec and by the increasingly aggressive actions of some western Canadian provinces, most notably Alberta and British Columbia. How far has the current round of political decentralization gone? This situation is almost impossible to assess, despite the often­made assertion that Canada possesses the most decentralized federal system in the world. There is no easy way to measure the exact degree of centralization and decentralization found in a federal state. Economists often look to tax revenue and government spending as indicators of one government’s dominance over the other.[2] Constitutional jurisdiction is only meaningful if a government possesses the funds necessary to fulfil its responsibilities. There are few taxing and spending fields in which the Canadian federal government possesses exclusivity.[3] Does this fact reveal a decentralized federal state? Yes, on one level it does, but federalism is a complicated system that works on many levels simultaneously. Viewing federalism in terms of a giant pendulum swinging back and forth does not always conform to reality. For example, it is possible for a government to compensate for a loss of financial autonomy through the use of its regulatory powers or some other policy instrument. In the end, everything could simply cancel out. In the study of federalism, nothing is as simple as it appears at first glance! https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 7/20 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide Figure 3.1 The Evolution of Canadian Federalism 1867 to the Present 1 See J. R. Mallory, “The Fives Faces of Federalism,” in J. Peter Meekison, ed., Canadian Federalism: Myth or Reality, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Methuen, 1971), pp. 55–65. 2 For an example of an economic analysis of the centralization/decentralization issue, see T. J. Courchene, Economic Management and the Division of Powers (Studies of the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada, #67, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), Chapter 2. For a discussion of the limitations of measuring the degree of economic decentralization in a federal state, see R. M. Bird, “Federal Finance in Comparative Perspective,” in David Conklin, ed., Ottawa and the Provinces: The Distribution of Money and Power (Toronto: Ontario Economic Council, 1985), pp. 137–177. 3 G. Stevenson, “The Division of Powers,” in R. D. Olling and M. W. Westmacott, eds., Perspectives on Canadian Federalism (Scarborough: Prentice-Hall Canada Inc., 1988), pp. 35–60. TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 8/20 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide Unit 3 Regionalism and Province­ Building The Long-term Trend Venturing opinions on the relative degree of centralization or decentralization in Canada today can be an extremely imprecise exercise. Predicting the future evolution of Canadian federalism is almost as foolhardy. Stepping back and using historical hindsight can produce meaningful observations, however. In Canada’s case the long­term trend is clear (see Figure 3.1). We are a much more decentralized federation today than when we started out in 1867. While power has shifted from the federal government to the provinces, and back again, the balance sheet clearly favours the provinces. John A. Macdonald’s famous prediction that provincial governments would eventually wither and die has not been fulfilled. Today, provinces are important and powerful actors in the Canadian federal system. What is interesting about the Canadian experience is that it runs directly counter to the situation in almost all other federal states. During the post­ World War II era the role of the national government increased considerably in some countries, notably the United States and Australia.[1] This situation is normally attributed to such factors as the development of the modern social welfare state, the application of Keynesian economics, a desire to create a national industrial policy, and the technological revolution in transportation and communication. But what makes Canada different? What has caused political centralization throughout the world and political decentralization in our own federal state? [1] T. O. Heuglin, “Federalism in Comparative Perspective,” in R. D. Olling and M. W. Westmacott, eds., Perspectives on Canadian Federalism (Scarborough: Prentice-Hall Canada Inc., 1988), pp. 16–32. TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 9/20 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide Unit 3 Regionalism and Province­ Building Explanations for Canada’s Evolution Perhaps the most difficult problem confronting students of Canadian politics is that of providing an adequate explanation of the long­term attenuation of federal power. Explanations of the evolution of Canadian federalism fall into four distinct schools of thought focusing on: aspects of political economy, Canada’s regional character, province­ building, and the influence of Quebec nationalism. Writings in political economy stress the changing nature of the national economy, divisions within various “class fractions,” and the shifting loyalties of different economic interests. An example of this class analysis of the evolution of the Canadian federal system is found in the assigned reading for this unit from the Stevenson text. The second explanation of the evolution of Canadian federalism is sociological, and relates to the nature of Canada’s federal society. Here the focus is placed on regionalism and on the strong identification of Canadian citizens with the particular geographic area in which they reside. Richard Vernon argues that in a federal system the loyalty of citizens is divided between two different governments.[1] Should there be a shift in public sentiment, identifying more with one government than another, then it is possible to envision a loss of political legitimacy for a particular government and a change in the balance of power within the federation. Many observers argue that Canadians possess strong regional attachments. Historian J. M. S. Careless, for example, has observed that Canadians define themselves primarily in terms of “limited identities.”[2] According to this view, we see ourselves, first and foremost, as members of distinct regional and provincial communities united under a federal system of government. Careless argues that regional sentiments have long held prominence in Canada (beginning well before Confederation) and today stand at the core of Canadian national identity. This view coincides closely with former Prime Minister Joe Clark’s famous description of Canada as a “community of communities.” During the 1970s, several Canadian political scientists attempted to gather more scientific evidence concerning the regional orientation of Canadians. They conducted a number of public opinion surveys in conjunction with the National Election Study of 1974 and, later, the 1977–79 deliberations of the Task Force on Canadian Unity.[3] Their findings are extremely interesting. When asked to make a choice about primary identification, an overwhelming number of those surveyed, outside of Quebec, saw themselves first and foremost as “Canadians.” Yet, at the same time, the majority of the population (and particularly those people living in the eastern and western peripheries) revealed a tendency to see Canada as a composite of distinct regions and provinces, and themselves as residents of these distinct regions or provinces. When asked to indicate which level of government felt “closer” and had a greater “effect” on their daily lives, provincial governments held a clear advantage in all cases except Ontario. What are we to make of the polling data? Clearly, there is support for the Careless view that Canadians define themselves in terms of “limited identities.” However, the idea of a region seems to mean different things to different people. Some people identify with a local geographic area (e.g., the Niagara region in Ontario), others see their region comprising a combination of several provinces (e.g., the Canadian West or the Maritimes), and still others view region and province as synonymous. It must also be remembered that most of the polling data concerning regional consciousness was assembled during a single decade. No systematic and scientific sampling of regional sentiment was carried out before the 1970s and none has taken place https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 10/20 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide in the past several years. It is impossible, then, to prove any sort of trend. Did Canadians think more in regional terms in 1974 than during the Depression or during John A. Macdonald’s time? Has regional sentiment increased or decreased in the aftermath of the patriation of the Canadian constitution in 1982? If it has increased, has it been at the expense of a larger sense of Canadian nationalism? Lacking the appropriate data gathered across time, it is simply impossible to offer a definitive opinion. Further complicating the situation is the fact that the data reveals the impact of regionalism as lacking uniformity across the population. Analysing the results of the 1974 National Election Study, the team of Clark, Jensen, LeDuc, and Pammett concluded that ”regional consciousness is highest among Canadians who are young, more highly educated, better off, English­speaking, from metropolitan areas and smaller cities, upper­middle class in identification and geographically mobile.”[4] Essentially, regionalism impacts the greatest on upper­level socioeconomic groups—the country’s political and economic elite—while only weakly or moderately affecting the mass of the population. The political importance of regionalism increases when regional consciousness is first linked to a shared sense of injustice (or historical grievance) and then given shape and focus by provincial political leaders. According to Richard Simeon, the implications for the federal system can be great: At the elite level, federalism . . . [confers] leadership on a set of leaders in provincial governments who have vested interest in maintaining and strengthening the salience of the regional dimension. The provincial governments do more than just respond to demands from their populations. First, they respond to some groups more than others; and, more important, they have, as complex organizations in their own right, certain bureaucratic needs, especially the need to gain power, to enhance their status, and to maintain their political support. So, of course, has the federal government. This is the truth behind the common observation that somehow the interests of the public get lost in federal­provincial discussions. Thus to maintain support, a provincial government is motivated to accentuate the degree of internal unity, and to exaggerate the extent of difference with Ottawa, and to divert political conflict onto an external enemy. They are likely to stress issues in such a way that their internal divisions are minimized, and to stress most those issues on which there is least internal disagreement. They are also less likely to be concerned with the substance of issues, and more likely to be concerned with those aspects of an issue with the greatest importance for them as governments. They are less concerned with what is done than with questions like who does it and who gets credit. One does not need to assume that provincial leaders are foolish or evil, or that each will pursue the same policies. One simply has to recognize the importance of certain well­known characteristics of organizational behaviour. In this sense the interests of a provincial government are quite different conceptually from the interests of the residents of the province.[5] [1] R. Vernon, “The Federal Citizen,” in Olling and Westmacott, Perspectives on Canadian Federalism, pp. 3–15. [2] J. M. S. Careless, “ ‘Limited Identities’ in Canada,” Canadian Historical Review 50, no. 1 (1969): 1–10. [3] For a summary and interpretation of the 1974 polling results see H. D. Clarke, J. Jenson, L. LeDuc, and J. H. Pammett, Political Choice in Canada (Toronto: McGrawHill Ryerson, 1980). Another interesting discussion of regional political attitudes can be found in Small Worlds: Provinces and Parties in Canadian Political Life, D. J. Elkins and R. Simeon, eds. (Toronto: Methuen, 1980). [4] Clarke, Jenson, LeDuc, and Pammett, Political Choice in Canada, p. 37. https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 11/20 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide [5] R. Simeon, “Regionalism and Canadian Political Institutions,” in J. Peter Meekison, ed., Canadian Federalism: Myth or Reality (Toronto: Methuen, 1977), pp. 301–302. Used by permission, Nelson Canada. TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 12/20 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide Unit 3 Regionalism and Province­ Building The Province-Building Debate Simeon’s observations point to the long­standing difficulty of sorting out the interrelationship between federal government and federal society. In Canada, provincial governments “are not simply the outgrowth or products of the environment and . . . they are not just dependent variables in the political system. They can also be seen as independent forces, which have some effects of their own: once established, they themselves come to shape and influence the environment.”[1] The end result is the long­term enhancement of provincial political and bureaucratic competence leading to an increase in the power and prestige of the “provincial state” and greater federal­provincial competition over the “legitimization” functions of government. The expansive and manipulative actions of provincial governments are often cited as a third factor influencing the development of the Canadian federal system. In an influential article published in 1977, Alan Cairns introduces a more thorough and comprehensive discussion of the theory of “province­building” that analyses the interplay of social and institutional forces within the Canadian federal system.[2] According to Cairns, the evolution of the Canadian federal system is largely a reflection of a conscious attempt on the part of provincial political leaders and provincial government bureaucracies to expand their personal power and prestige at the expense of the federal government in Ottawa. Not surprisingly given the explanations for Canada’s evolution provided earlier in this commentary, not all students of Canadian federalism agree with Cairns’s analysis. An essay published in 1984 by Young, Faucher, and Blais provides a critical review of the fundamental assumptions underlying the province­building theory and thus stands as an important counterpoint to Cairns.[3] Even the most appealing explanatory theories need to be examined carefully and, where necessary, challenged and debated. This is the essence of academic study. Federalism and Regionalism One of the enduring features of the Canadian federal system is its distinct “regions.” The concept of “region” is less arbitrary than that of a province, in that regions are typically defined by enduring geographic and sociocultural characteristics. Unfortunately, no consensus is found within the academic literature as to what variables should be used to demarcate the boundaries of a region. Geographers differentiate regions on the basis of physical features, such as landforms, climate, and vegetation. Sociologists define a region by reference to linguistic and cultural communities. Economists often identify a region with the existence of major economic growth centres within a nation­state. In political science, regions are most often defined by the existence of political boundaries. The regions in the “centre” of the country coincide with provincial boundaries (e.g., Quebec and Ontario). In the case of the regions beyond the “centre,” the concept of “region” comprises a clustering of provinces or territories. Although British Columbia has sometimes been grouped with the Prairie provinces, convincing arguments have been made that its distinct geographical, social, and economic circumstances warrant that British Columbia be considered a region unto itself. The same could perhaps be said for Alberta, which has much less in common with Saskatchewan and Manitoba today than it did fifty or a hundred years ago. The notion of “region” is important in discussing Canadian federalism, as tensions between the subunits in the Canadian federal system increasingly play out along regional lines. The primary regional tensions are between “the centre” and “the periphery” and between the predominantly francophone region of Quebec and the anglophone regions of the country. https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 13/20 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide The tension between the francophone and anglophone regions of the country is discussed in Unit 4; the tension between centre and the peripheries is the focus of the remainder of this unit. “Atlantic Canada” is an artificial concept since Newfoundland and Labrador (a separate country until 1949) is quite different from the other three eastern provinces and traditionally had little contact with them. Nonetheless, all four Atlantic provinces are sparsely populated, far from major markets, and subject to the vicissitudes of a resource­based economy. Unlike other parts of Canada, they have received few immigrants in the last hundred years. The Atlantic provinces concern themselves most with chronically high rates of unemployment and the region’s lack of economic diversity. However, the capacity of Atlantic Canada to devise its own economic development strategies is rather limited. The first assigned reading by Donald Savoie attempts to explain why this is so. The Savoie article is interesting because of its analytical approach. Working within the framework of dependency theory, Savoie concludes that the Atlantic region’s heavy reliance on federal fiscal transfers and bureaucratic expertise has seriously undermined the ability of provincial governments to take independent action or to challenge federal program initiatives. The Atlantic region has no provincial economic programs, only federal economic programs provincially administered. As Savoie notes “federal cost­sharing permeates every policy field, and every government department and agency concerned with both social and economic development.”[4] In the Atlantic region, fiscal, administrative, and political realities dictate a cautious and pragmatic approach toward dealings with the federal government. As Savoie points out, the positions adopted by the Atlantic provinces are often contradictory. On the one hand, political leaders argue that a major reason for the region’s underdevelopment lies with the discriminatory and poorly formulated policies and programs of the federal government. On the other hand, the region is profoundly centralist, preferring the maintenance of a strong central government armed with an array of policy tools and financial resources capable of alleviating regional economic disparities. Of course, the recent tendency of Newfoundland and Labrador to chart its own distinct course in questions of economic development somewhat contradicts Savoie’s dependency thesis. In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, a more aggressive stance in federal­ provincial relations appears predicated on only a hope of future economic prosperity. However, the province remains dependent on federal transfer payments and on federal funding of the Hibernia oil project. Whether Newfoundland and Labrador will revert to more traditional forms of intergovernmental behaviour under different political leadership remains open to question.[5] Note that the term “Atlantic” refers to all four of the eastern provinces; the term “Maritimes” refers only to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. The reason for this distinction is that Newfoundland and Labrador has a social, cultural, and economic history that is distinct from the other three provinces. Like the Atlantic provinces, the four western provinces also form a periphery of Canada. The economy of western Canada is also primarily resource driven, but, unlike the situation in the Atlantic region, the western region, particularly Alberta and British Columbia, is relatively prosperous. Also unlike the Atlantic provinces, provincial governments in the West have engaged in highly aggressive actions to diversify their own economies and reduce the influence of the federal government. These efforts are made possible because of provincial financial surpluses generated from resource rents. Unlike the Atlantic provinces, but like Quebec, the western provinces have often been governed by parties with labels and ideologies different from those that have held office at the federal level. Within western Canada, the government of Alberta is associated with the most comprehensive provincial economic plan. At the heart of Alberta’s strategy are efforts to steer the provincial economy away from its dependence on oil and natural gas, to limit the impact of external forces on the local economy, and to use the ownership of natural resources to shift economic and political power westward.[6] The other western provinces have committed themselves to economic strategies comparable in intent to those of Alberta. They, too, see their salvation in increased provincial control over natural resources and in the further upgrading of the resource and agricultural sectors within their boundaries. The assigned reading by Roger Gibbins places the western provinces’ current discontent with federal economic policy and the rise of western alienation into a wider historical context. In Gibbins’s view, past federal­provincial disputes over such matters as energy pricing have eroded the federal government’s legitimacy in the region. This, coupled with https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 14/20 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide the economic strength of the West and the failure of intrastate institutions to provide adequate representation of western interests have contributed to the growing emphasis on interstate federal institutions. The second article by Savoie examines the historical evolution of regional development in Canada. While neither level of government is specifically charged with the responsibility of decreasing regional disparities, the federal government has taken the lead in this highly complex policy area. Savoie argues that federal fiscal restraint coupled with a global economy will result in increasing regional fragmentation and decentralization. As the key areas of education and infrastructure are provincial responsibility, differing provincial fiscal capacity will thus result in further regional inequities. It is clear that political leaders in Canada cannot ignore regional issues. The fragmentation of the political party system in the 1990s is but one legacy of the regional tensions in the Canadian federal system. Some observers go so far as to warn that the increasing balkanization of Canada will lend support to separatist movements that will lead to the disintegration of the country. These movements toward self­determination are the subject of the next two units. [1] Simeon, “Regionalism and Canadian Political Institutions,” p. 297. [2] A. C. Cairns, “The Governments and Societies of Canadian Federalism,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 10: 4 (1977): 695–725. [3] R. A. Young, P. Faucher, and A. Blais, “The Concept of Province-Building: A Critique,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 17: 4 (1984): 783–818. [4] D. J. Savoie, “The Atlantic Region: The Politics of Dependency,” in Olling and Westmacott, Perspectives on Canadian Federalism, p. 296. [5] For an updated discussion of Newfoundland’s relations with Ottawa and the other provinces, see D. M. Brown, “Sea-Change in Newfoundland: From Peckford to Wells,” in R. L. Watts and D. M. Brown, eds., Canada: The State of the Federation 1990 (Kingston: Queen’s University, Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, 1990), pp. 199–229. [6] For a discussion of Alberta’s economic development strategy, see J. Richards and L. Pratt, Prairie Capitalism: Power and Influence in the New West (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1979), especially chapter 9. TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 15/20 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide Unit 3 Regionalism and Province­ Building Notes on Terms accumulative function: A term coined by American political economist James O’Connor (and used by Savoie and Stevenson) to describe government policies, actions, or both, that directly contribute to the accumulation of private sector (i.e., business) profits. attenuate: This term is often associated with D. V. Smiley’s writings on the changing balance of power within Confederation. Simply put, “attenuate” means to reduce, weaken, or minimize the power and status of one level of government for the benefit of another. balkanize: A term used to describe the degeneration of a country into a group of hostile and warring political units without any sense of common purpose. Critics of political decentralization often warn of the inevitable “balkanization” of the country and the potential break­up of the Canadian federal system. bourgeoisie: A term used in political economy to refer to the upper classes, particularly those who control or manage large business enterprises. branch plant: A business that is a subsidiary of a foreign­owned corporation. For example, Ford Canada is a branch plant of its American­based parent corporation. centrifugal forces: Those events and activities that promote political decentralization in a federal state. centripetal forces: Those events and activities that promote political centralization in a federal state. cleavage: A political science term for a division within society producing long­ term political conflict. In Canada, the most important cultural cleavage is the division between English­ and French­speaking Canadians. Stevenson uses the term to help explain different class factions and the different interests of the Canadian manufacturing, agricultural, and resource sectors. comprador faction: A term used in political economy to refer to the people who manage and operate the branch plants of foreign multinational corporations. dependency: The term “dependency” is often used to explain the underdevelopment of the Atlantic region. Radical political economists and neoclassical economists use the term differently, however. Political economists, such as Ralph Matthews, see dependency as synonymous with the systematic exploitation of one region of the country by another. This behaviour is considered to be in the interest of the dominant capitalist class. Neoclassical economists, such as Thomas Courchene, view dependency in terms of the over­reliance of slow­growth areas on government largesse. In this view, dependency is considered contradictory to free market economics and a form of economic inefficiency. elite: Elites are small groups of people who exercise power in a society. On one level, an elite can be defined as those people who possess decision­making authority or power. Members of parliament, for example, are part of Canada’s political elite. Similarly, the presidents and chief executive officers of major corporations constitute Canada’s economic elite. One can also speak of religious, military, bureaucratic, cultural, or academic elites. federal society: A society in which group diversity is territorially based. See the commentary for Unit 1. https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 16/20 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide hinterland: An economic and geographic term for an outlying area that provides resources to a metropolitan centre. In Canada, the western and Atlantic regions can be considered economic hinterlands of Ontario and Quebec. Hinterland status can lead to feelings of exploitation, and to manifestations of political alienation. legitimization function: A term used in political economy to refer to government policies, actions, or both, which seek to reinforce the legitimacy of the state in the eyes of the population. Legitimization functions may involve the provision of social welfare services to the public, or the regulation and restriction of business activities in order to support some common public good. In the Canadian federal system, policies that seek to enhance state legitimacy have led to government expansion, the duplication of services, and intense political competition between the federal government and the provinces. The idea of legitimization is tied directly to the concept of province building. National Policy: A set of interrelated policies enacted by the government of John A. Macdonald in order to increase Canadian economic prosperity and maintain Canada’s independence from the United States. These policies included western territorial expansion, the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the encouragement of immigration and settlement of the West, the creation of a wheat economy, and the erection of a tariff wall around Canada. neoclassical economics: An economic approach (consistent with liberal economic thought) which holds that economic decisions should only be made according to demands of the free market. Neoclassical economists believe all forms of government intervention are unnatural and result in economic inefficiency. political economy: The study of the relationship between politics and economics. One noted political economist, Robert Gilpin, offers this perspective on the relationship: On the one hand, politics largely determines the framework of economic activity and channels it in directions intended to serve the interests of dominant groups; the exercise of power in all its forms is a major determinant of the nature of an economic system. On the other hand, the economic process itself tends to redistribute power and wealth, it transforms the power relationships among groups. This in turn leads to a transformation of the political system, thereby giving rise to a new structure of economic relationships.[1] region: A region is a homogeneous area with physical and cultural characteristics distinct from those of neighbouring areas. regionalism: Regionalism refers to personal identification with a particular region; in other words, a perception of belonging to a region, or a sense of regional consciousness among the general population or certain sections of the population. Triple E Senate: A proposal for Senate reform advocated by the government of Alberta and popular throughout western Canada. The “Triple E” proposal calls for an elected Senate, with equal representation from each province, and with effective powers. western alienation: Western alienation is best seen as a political ideology of regional discontent. Western alienation encompasses a sense of historical grievance against the perceived exploitation of the West by Central Canada. It also involves a sense of isolation or estrangement from the centres of economic and political power, and a belief that the West is systematically ignored in national decision­making. Western alienation has been manifested in different ways at different times. During the 1920s and 1930s regional discontent was expressed in the formation of a number of western­based protest parties, such as the Progressives. During the 1970s, strong and aggressive provincial governments became the outlet for western alienation. During the 1980s, western alienation provided the impetus for the formation of the Reform Party, which later became the Canadian Alliance, and then merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form a new Conservative Party. [1] R. Gilpin, US Power and the Multinational Corporation: The Political Power of Foreign Direct Investment (New York: Basic Books, 1975), pp. 21–22. https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 17/20 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 18/20 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide Unit 3 Regionalism and Province­ Building Study Questions When you have read the assigned reading and the commentary, test your understanding of the material by answering the following study questions. You will find it helpful to write out your answers in full sentences or a brief paragraph. If you have difficulty, review the relevant material. If you still cannot answer the question, please contact your tutor for assistance. 1. a. What has been the general trend in the evolution of Canadian federalism? (Commentary) b. How does the Canadian trend differ from that of most other federal states? (Commentary) Garth Stevenson—“The Political Economy of Decentralization” 2. How does the study of Canada’s political economy explain the changing balance of power within Confederation? (Stevenson) 3. What assumptions about government and society form the basis for Stevenson’s political economy perspective? (Stevenson) 4. Which Canadian province began the process of “province­building”? (Stevenson) 5. a. What political and economic forces were unleashed by Macdonald’s National Policy? (Stevenson) b. How did the National Policy affect the role and behaviour of provincial governments? (Stevenson) 6. How did the Great Depression of the 1930s change the political economy of Canadian federalism? (Stevenson) 7. How did World War II alter the institutional loyalty of different “class fractions”? Which level of government became the net beneficiary of these changes? (Stevenson) 8. How did the post­war integration of the Canadian and American economies influence the evolution of Canadian federalism? (Stevenson) 9. What accounts for the revival of “centripetal forces” within Confederation during the late 1970s and early 1980s? (Stevenson) Savoie—“The Atlantic Region: The Politics of Dependency” 10. What is dependency theory? Provide examples of how it is used to explain underdevelopment in Atlantic Canada. (Savoie) 11. What is the neoclassical understanding of why there is underdevelopment in Atlantic Canada? (Savoie) 12. What are the critiques of both the dependency and neoclassical theories of economic underdevelopment? (Savoie) https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 19/20 10/1/2018 Unit 3 - Study Guide 13. What difficulties do the Atlantic provinces face in designing and implementing economic policies independently from the federal government? (Savoie) 14. Given its economic problems, what explanations are given as to why the Maritimes are not fertile ground for radical politics? (Savoie) 15. What accounts for the different approach to federal­provincial relations adopted by Newfoundland and Labrador? (Commentary; Savoie) Savoie: “Regional Development: A Policy for All Seasons” 16. What purpose and what problems were associated with the variety of regional development initiatives undertaken in the post­war years? Write the programs out as a table, with the name of the initiative, its purpose, and the problems it ran into. (Savoie) 17. Why does regional development require close federal­provincial cooperation? (Savoie) 18. How will globalization affect regionalism in Canada? (Savoie) TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203 20/20 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide Unit 2 ­ Study Guide Unit 2 ­ Study Guide Site: Course: Book: Printed by: Date: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences POLI 390: Canadian Federalism_ May2010 Unit 2 ­ Study Guide Sara Al­Marashdeh Monday, 1 October 2018, 8:21 AM MDT https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 1/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide Table of contents Overview Learning Objectives Part 2.1 Confederation Part 2.2 The Constitution and the Game of Politics https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 2/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide Unit 2 The Origins of Canadian Federalism Overview Unit 2 begins a discussion of the historical development of Canadian federalism. To understand the evolution of the federal system, however, it is first necessary to explore the creation of Canada’s federal constitution and the original objectives of the Fathers of Confederation. Part 2.1 focuses on the factors that pushed the British North American colonies in the direction of federal union. Part 2.2 explores the distribution of legislative powers in the Canadian constitution. TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 3/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide Unit 2 The Origins of Canadian Federalism Learning Objectives When you have completed Unit 2, you should be able to achieve the following learning objectives. Part 2.1 Confederation 1. Explain why Confederation is considered the most important political event in the history of Canada. 2. Outline the nature of economic activity, government, society, and politics in the British North American colonies before Confederation. 3. Identify and discuss the historical events that led Central Canada and the Maritimes to consider the idea of a federal union. 4. Outline the arguments advanced in both the Maritimes and French Canada by proponents and opponents of the Confederation agreement. 5. Describe and critique the process by which Confederation was negotiated and implemented. 6. Summarize the final terms of the federal union. 7. Identify and discuss the major governmental and political issues left unresolved by the Fathers of Confederation. https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 4/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide Part 2.2 The Constitution and the Game of Politics 8. Identify and discuss the criteria used to determine the final distribution of legislative powers between the federal government and the provinces. 9. Identify and describe the major constitutional powers assigned to the federal government and the provinces. 10. Discuss how and why the distribution of government powers has changed over time. 11. Compare the different visions of the framers of the Canadian and American constitutions. 12. Give reasons why the Canadian and American federal systems evolved in such different ways. TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 5/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide Unit 2 The Origins of Canadian Federalism Part 2.1 Confederation Reading Assignment Commentary for Part 2.1. Chapter 2: “Origins and Objectives of Canadian Confederation,” in Unfulfilled Union, 5th ed., by Garth Stevenson, pp. 20–42. Commentary Confederation is the single most important political event in Canada’s history. Most Canadians know something about Sir John A. Macdonald and his national dream, yet there is little real comprehension of exactly why a federal form of government was chosen by the Fathers of Confederation, how federalism was intended to work, and what written and unwritten understandings were part of the original Confederation agreement. What Did Confederation Accomplish? Confederation accomplished a number of important goals as listed below: Confederation united three British colonies—Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick—into a single political unit, divided the old province of Canada into the new provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and laid the basis for the inclusion of the other British North American colonies in the new Dominion of Canada. https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 6/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide Confederation established an entirely new form of government organization, grafting federalism onto a British parliamentary system of government. Confederation provided a better means of managing relations between Canada’s two founding peoples—the English and the French. Confederation gave French Canadians living in Quebec their own legislature and the constitutional powers necessary to preserve the French language and culture. Confederation reduced the American military threat and laid the basis for Canada’s future expansion into the prairies and British Columbia. Confederation made possible the establishment of a transcontinental economy and the means to promote Canada’s future economic growth. Finally, Confederation established a principle of sharing both the costs and benefits of nationhood, a uniquely Canadian approach to governing that stresses the redistribution of wealth between different regions and provinces. Confederation, however, did not solve every Canadian problem and the new constitution— the British North America Act—was far from a perfect document. It failed to accomplish a number of objectives: Confederation failed to provide Canada with total independence from Britain. Full constitutional autonomy came slowly over the next century, and it was not until 1982 that the constitution was finally patriated and a domestic amending formula was adopted. Confederation failed to provide Canada with a fully written constitution, leaving many of Canada’s constitutional practices (including the procedure by which the BNA Act itself was to be amended) subject to custom and convention. Confederation failed to create an equal relationship between French­speaking and English­speaking Canadians. French­speaking minorities outside of Quebec received no constitutional protection. Even within Quebec, English­speakers continued to dominate the economy. https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 7/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide Confederation did not completely resolve the problem of combining majority rule with respect for the interests of smaller provinces or regions. In particular, the Senate proved to be totally ineffective in this regard. The creation of Canada and the United States can be contrasted in terms of democratic legitimacy. In the United States, a constitution was drafted, several years after the war of independence, through the convening of a special constitutional convention of the people’s delegates. It did not take effect until each of the thirteen original states had approved it. In Canada, Confederation was a political deal worked out (somewhat unexpectedly) by political leaders from several British colonies with no specific popular mandate for the project. The British government used its considerable influence on behalf of the project. The final agreement was submitted for approval to only one legislature and faced serious popular opposition in the Maritimes and in Quebec. It was probably supported by most people in Ontario, while opinion in Quebec and New Brunswick was probably divided. Nova Scotia was forced into Confederation against the will of most of its people. Pre­Confederation British North America To understand the forces that led the united Canadas, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick into federal union, it is necessary to first consider the nature of British North America before Confederation. Unit 1 pointed out that federalism represents a rather delicate balance, as previously independent political units must possess some forms of commonality while striving to preserve and protect certain diversities. Unfortunately, the assigned reading from the Stevenson text fails to explain fully the distinct character of the British North American colonies. It is, therefore, useful to review briefly the situation previous to 1867. Before Confederation, British North America comprised five separate colonies: Canada (comprising Canada East and Canada West; or what is now known as Quebec and Ontario), Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland (the latter two colonies did not enter Confederation until 1873 and 1949, respectively). In each colony, responsible government was in its final stage of development. Settlement patterns had resulted in each colony having its own ethnic and religious mix. The colony of Canada was united politically, but divided culturally and linguistically between its English­ and French­ speaking populations. Economic activity varied between the Maritime concentration on wood, wind, and water, and the merchant, manufacturing, and farming operations of Central Canada. Most important in the context of the mid­nineteenth century, each colony https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 8/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide was geographically separate from the others. Communication took place primarily by ship, and the travel time between colonies was considerable. Map of Pre­Confederation British North America From Canada: Unity in Diversity, by P. G. Cornell, J. Hamelin, F. Ouellet, and M. Trudel. (Toronto: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston of Canada, Ltd., 1967), p. 234. Perhaps the best academic study of the Confederation period was carried out by historian Donald Creighton for the Royal Commission on Dominion­Provincial Relations (the Rowell­ Sirois Commission) in 1939.[1] The final report of the Commission summarized the pre­ Confederation situation in British North America as follows: The Maritimes looked to the sea. They concentrated on their timber and fish, their shipbuilding and their carrying trade. Their own hinterland and the vast continent behind them were little in their thoughts. The Canadas had developed a thriving export trade in timber and wheat. The most active spirits, however, took these outlets for granted and https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 9/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide faced inward on the continent. For them, the St. Lawrence water system was not so much a political boundary as a great highway leading into the heart of the continent. From the beginning, the Canadians had dreamed of a future when a trade of continental proportions would pour along their highway. The other British colonies had little place in their plans for the St. Lawrence as one of the great trade routes of the world. And the concerns of the Red River and the Pacific Coast settlements were entirely foreign to those of Canada and the Maritimes. The separate preoccupations of the colonies had led them in opposite directions emphasizing, in social terms, their physical isolation from one another.[2] In the context of the nineteenth century, the political union of the British colonies was viewed almost as improbable as a present­day union between Canada and Australia. The colonies were not only miles apart, in many respects they were also worlds apart. Although they shared a common British ancestry and common British political institutions, their historical and social evolution remained separate and distinct. Strong local identities predominated. Until the 1850s the idea of political union was never seriously contemplated by politicians and certainly not by ordinary citizens. Factors Leading to Confederation What caused the British North American colonies to think about the idea of a federal political union? For some federal scholars, Confederation serves as almost a perfect case study of the creation of a federal state. This situation is well illustrated in the Stevenson reading. However, before proceeding with the Stevenson text, it is best to pause and review the material covered in Unit 1. As was discussed in Unit 1, federalism results from a combination of factors, the most important of which depends on the specific country and the specific circumstance. The most­cited explanatory factors for federal union involve: a desire to preserve cultural or social diversity and recognize and protect group or community identities. a desire to promote economic development, reduce the cost of government, or pool economic risk. a desire to provide for joint military protection, military expansion, or both. a desire to fragment government authority and limit the power of the state over a country’s citizens. The assigned chapter by Stevenson discusses the social, economic, military, and political factors that led to Confederation in 1867. Read this chapter carefully, then try to link the historical material covered by Stevenson to the theoretical discussion in Unit 1. As you read, jot down information relating to each factor, and then compile four separate lists for reference and future study. https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 10/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide In addition to the general factors at play in the 1860s, it is also important to understand the original objectives of specific regions or colonies when they entered into the Confederation negotiations. Confederation was a political deal, but what were the objectives of each Confederation partner? In the case of the Maritimes, strategic, economic, and transportation concerns tended to predominate. In Central Canada, the overriding problem related to a changing demographic balance, escalating political instability, and an inability of existing political institutions to manage French­English relations effectively. As Stevenson suggests, these regional considerations can be closely related to the limited objectives of particular economic interests operating in the colonies. Thus, Confederation can be interpreted as the work of the various political and economic élites that dominated the colonies in British North America. Negotiating the Confederation Agreement In developing an understanding of Canadian federalism, the process by which Confederation was negotiated assumes equal importance with the factors that led to a consideration of political union. Even today, process appears to be a particularly Canadian preoccupation. Intergovernmental discussions on Confederation began unexpectedly in September 1864 when representatives of the Great Coalition dropped in on a Charlottetown conference called to consider the idea of Maritime union. Interest in the Central Canadian proposal for a federal union led to further negotiations at Quebec City in November 1864 and a final drafting session in London in 1866. All negotiations took place in private and no official record of the deliberations exists today. Only in the legislature of Canada was the final Confederation agreement put to a vote. Referring to the deal as a “treaty” and “solemn pact,” Macdonald refused to entertain any amendments to the new constitutional arrangement for fear that negotiations would have to begin anew with the Maritime governments. In the cases of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, substantial public opposition to the idea of political union (focused primarily in the port cities of Halifax and Saint John) left the final decision on Confederation in the hands of the premier and the colonial office in Britain. As Stevenson points out, the concept of Confederation was never directly put to a vote by the citizens of the colonies. This fact both denied the federal system democratic legitimacy and, at the same time, established a long­standing precedent that intergovernmental negotiations should be carried out without public consultation and input. A number of political trade­offs underlay the final Confederation settlement. These trade­ offs are implied, but not clearly outlined, in the Stevenson reading. https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 11/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide The federal government’s powers related to the great matters of the day: military defence, nation­building and territorial expansion, and economic development. Provincial powers related to local concerns, matters that were primarily church (not government) responsibilities, and activities basic to the cultural and linguistic preservation of the English­ and French­speaking communities. In entering into negotiations, Sir John A. Macdonald showed a decided preference for what he called a “legislative union” (in other words, a unitary system of government). This view was inspired by Macdonald’s negative assessment of the American federal system and by his desire for a strong government capable of forging a national economy and pursuing westward expansion. Opposition from Quebec members of the Great Coalition and from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia delegates at the Quebec Conference necessitated a pragmatic compromise. While Macdonald finally accepted a federal system of government, it was one in which the cards were decidedly stacked in favour of the federal government in Ottawa. Among the special quasi­federal powers assigned to the federal government were: the right to legislate in all matters relating to “peace, order, and good government of Canada” the right to raise money by any “mode or system of taxation” the right to appoint the judges to the most important courts in each province the right to assume control of “works for the general advantage of Canada” the right to appoint Lieutenant­Governors in the provinces and instruct these Lieutenant­Governors to withhold royal assent to provincial legislation, or “reserve” it for a final decision by the federal government the right to disallow provincial legislation within one year of its passage The gains for the Maritimes were mostly economic. Terms of the Confederation settlement included the assumption of existing colonial debts by the new central government and the guaranteed construction of the Intercolonial Railway to link the Maritimes to markets in Central Canada. An additional concession involved creating an appointed Senate apportioned on the basis of equal regional representation. This concession was intended to offset, at least in part, the political power of Central Canada in the new House of Commons. Confederation provided French Canadians with their own government in the Province of Quebec and constitutional jurisdiction over matters relating to language, culture, religion, and education. Special constitutional guarantees protected existing religious school systems, Protestant as well as Catholic, and Quebec kept its system of French civil law. French and English were to be the official languages of the federal parliament, the federal courts, and the legislature and courts of Quebec, but bilingualism was not provided for in the other provinces. This duality was intended to provide both linguistic minorities (the English in Quebec and the French in the rest of the country) a limited form of constitutional https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 12/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide protection. However, much of the tension between English­ and French­speaking Canadians since 1867 has revolved around a continuing debate concerning the adequacy of these constitutional provisions. Notes on Terms The Act of Union: The 1841 act of the British parliament that united the colonies of Upper and Lower Canada into a single political unit (Canada) and two administrative units (Canada East and Canada West). Representation in the new legislature was evenly divided between the predominately English­speaking Canada West and the predominately French­ speaking Canada East, despite the fact that the majority of the population lived in Canada East. British North America Act: The act of the British parliament that united the colonies of British North America and outlined Canada’s federal form of government. In 1982 the ability to alter this document was “patriated” to Canada and the document was renamed The Constitution Act. compact theory: A historical interpretation of Confederation that sees federal union as the product of a contractual agreement among provincial governments, or among the two founding peoples. According to the compact theory of Confederation, constitutional change can only take place with the unanimous agreement of the original Confederation partners. constitution: A constitution is a document that contains “the rules of the political game.” Put more formally, it is the set of fundamental laws, customs, and conventions within which government is exercised in a state. Federalism requires a formal written constitution with the division of powers clearly spelled out in a single document. constitutional convention (constituent assembly): A constitutional convention is a meeting of delegates expressly selected to formulate a constitution, or to amend the existing one. In the summer of 1787 the Americans held such a meeting in order to draft a new constitution. This meeting was followed by a process of ratification by the states. https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 13/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide The Durham Report: The Durham Report is named after its author, Lord Durham. In the aftermath of the rebellions of 1837 in Central Canada, Durham recommended the granting of responsible government, but he linked it to the political unification of Upper and Lower Canada. The intent of this action was to speed the assimilation of French Canadians into the English­Canadian population. The Durham Report was published in 1839 and laid the basis for the Act of Union of 1841. The Great Coalition: The Great Coalition was formed in the legislature of the United Canadas in 1864. The coalition brought into a single government the leaders of the three largest political parties—John A. Macdonald of the Conservatives, Georges­Etienne Cartier of the Parti Bleu, and George Brown of the Grits. The aim of the coalition was to end the political deadlock in Central Canada and create a new political entity encompassing all the British North American colonies. Grits: This is the popular name given to the progressive members of the Upper Canadian Reform Party (the forerunner of the present­day Liberal Party). The strength of this party lay with the so­called “agrarian radicals” of Southwestern Ontario. George Brown, one of the Fathers of Confederation, led most of the Grits (or Clear Grits as they were also called) into the Great Coalition of 1864. legislative union: This was Sir John A. Macdonald’s preferred system of government. Essentially, legislative union is another term for a unitary system of government, such as England and Scotland shared after 1707. Parti Bleu: This moderately conservative, church­supported party was led by George­ Etienne Cartier. The Parti Bleu was the French­Canadian equivalent of the Conservative Party in Canada West and a frequent coalition partner with Sir John A. Macdonald. After Confederation, the Parti Bleu formally merged into Macdonald’s national Conservative Party. Parti Rouge: The Parti Rouge represented the more radical stream of political thought in French Canada. Its leader, A. A. Dorion, vigorously opposed the Confederation scheme of Macdonald and Cartier. After Confederation the Parti Rouge merged with the Clear Grits of Ontario to form the Liberal Party of Canada. quasi­federal powers: A group of special constitutional powers assigned to the federal government that allow it to modify, displace, or influence provincial jurisdiction through unilateral action. https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 14/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide Quebec Resolutions: These were the product of the Quebec Conference of November 1864. This conference brought together the representatives of the Great Coalition, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland for a formal discussion of the concept of federal union. The seventy­two Quebec Resolutions outlined in draft form the government system that was eventually embodied in the British North America Act. reciprocal trade agreement or reciprocity: The name given to the free trade agreement between the United States and the British North American colonies. This arrangement went into force in 1854 and was ended by the United States in 1866. The termination of the Reciprocity Treaty, coupled with British ending of imperial trading preferences, encouraged the Maritimes to look to Central Canada for new markets for their fish, lumber, and coal. rep by pop: The determination of representation in the legislature based on the size and distribution of the population. responsible government: The constitutional principle (associated with a British parliamentary system of government) that the executive should be elected and remain in office only as long as it can enjoy the support of the legislature. Study Questions When you have read the assigned reading and the commentary, test your understanding of the material by answering the following study questions. You will find it helpful to write out your answers in full sentences or a brief paragraph. If you have difficulty, review the relevant materials. If you still cannot answer the question, please contact your tutor for assistance. 1. What is the political significance of Confederation? (Commentary; Stevenson) 2. What other political events were happening throughout the world when Canadians first began to consider a federal union? (Stevenson) 3. a. How did the economies of the British North American colonies differ before Confederation? (Commentary) b. What evidence is there (if any) of the existence of a federal society https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 15/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide before the establishment of a federal government in British North America? (Commentary) 4. a. What political crisis confronted Central Canada in the late 1850s and early 1860s? (Stevenson) b. What political options were considered in an effort to alleviate the crisis? (Stevenson) c. Why were the members of the Great Coalition attracted to the concept of federal union and territorial expansion? (Stevenson) 5. What caused the Maritimes to consider the idea of political union with Central Canada? (Stevenson) 6. a. Which economic interests endorsed the concept of political union? (Stevenson) b. What did these economic interests hope to gain from Confederation? (Stevenson) 7. a. What type of political arrangement was Sir John A. Macdonald’s first preference? (Commentary; Stevenson) b. What caused Macdonald to alter his position? (Commentary; Stevenson) 8. What did the Maritime region gain from Confederation? (Commentary; Stevenson) 9. What did the French-Canadian population gain from Confederation? (Commentary) 10. Who opposed the Confederation settlement? What formed the basis of this opposition? (Stevenson) 11. According to the 1867 constitution, what was to be the position of the federal government and what was to be the position of the provinces in the Canadian federation? (Stevenson) 12. How did this arrangement conform to the standard definition of a federal system of government? (Stevenson) 13. What are the quasi­federal powers held by the federal government? (Commentary; Stevenson) 14. What was missing from the 1867 constitution? (Commentary) 15. What important political issues were left unresolved by the Fathers of Confederation? (Stevenson 16. Why did the Confederation settlement lack democratic legitimacy? (Commentary; Stevenson) 17. What was wrong with the process by which Confederation was negotiated? (Stevenson; Commentary) https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 16/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide [1] See D. G. Creighton, British North America at Confederation (Ottawa: The King’s Printer, 1939). [2] Quoted from The Rowell­Sirois Report/Book I, D. V. Smiley, ed. (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1963), p. 10. TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 17/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide Unit 2 The Origins of Canadian Federalism Part 2.2 The Constitution and the Game of Politics Reading Assignment Commentary for Part 2.2. Appendix 1: “Constitution Act, 1867,” in Unfulfilled Union, 5th ed., by Garth Stevenson, pp. 287–295. Commentary Central to any federal system is a division of legislative powers entrenched in a written constitution. A knowledge of the federal division of powers is therefore essential to the study of Canadian federalism and the actions of political leaders. The division of powers determines (at least formally) the nature of the federal system and the balance of power between the two levels of government and thus the relative power of various political actors. It should be considered analogous to a “program,” spelling out the positions of the “players” in the federal­provincial “game.” The original distribution of powers established at the time of Confederation is outlined in the abridged version of the Constitution Act, 1867, found in Appendix 1 of the Stevenson text. When examined more than one hundred years after Confederation, and from the perspective of someone without legal training, the division of powers can prove difficult to read. The terminology is complicated, and few of the enumerated headings appear to translate easily into the present­day functions of government. To make things even worse, the distribution of legislative responsibilities contained in the Canadian constitution has undergone informal change over the years. Rather than federal and provincial powers being isolated in watertight compartments, circumstances have caused jurisdictions to become entangled, with both levels of government sharing responsibility for some aspects of government operation. The main task in reviewing the Constitution Act is to sort out federal and provincial responsibilities in terms of the different functions performed by governments. One criterion that was used to determine the distribution of legislative powers in Canada is the concept of “externalities.” Simply put, an externality is a spill­over, or overlap. The avoidance of externalities serves as one of the criteria that have determined the distribution of legislative powers in Canada. As a general rule, governments should not be given powers that easily allow them to affect the residents of other constituent units. In Canada’s case, the avoidance of externalities justifies federal control of matters that affect two or more provinces: for example, interprovincial transportation, money and banking, or interprovincial https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 18/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide trade. Similarly, in Canada it is generally accepted that citizens living in different areas of the country should be allowed freedom of choice in policy areas that are “local or private in nature.” To ensure that the federal government would maintain its dominant position, the framers of the Canadian constitution included a number of provisions that centralized political power in Ottawa. The first was the power of reservation. This provision allows the Lieutenant­ Governor of any province to pass on to the federal government the responsibility of giving or refusing assent to provincial legislation. The second provision, the power of disallowance, allows the federal cabinet to annul any piece of provincial legislation within one year of its passage. The third provision, declaratory power, allows the federal parliament to pass legislation proclaiming a local work or undertaking “for the general advantage of Canada.” This enables the federal government to regulate various physical entities, such as canals and uranium mines, in the national interest even if they fall within the boundaries of a province. Disallowance and reservation were used frequently in the early years of Confederation, particularly on western Canadian legislation. Often the mere threat of invoking this power was enough to pressure recalcitrant provinces to toe the federal government line. As the power of the provinces has increased, the legitimacy of the federal government to use these provisions has decreased. Disallowance has not been used since 1943; reservation was last used in 1961. It is interesting to note that while the framers of the American and Canadian constitutions had diametrically opposed goals, both federal systems ended up developing in the exact opposite direction that their framers had intended. These systems are a fascinating study of contrasts because their historical development is so different. Remember to use the study questions to guide your reading. A more detailed explanation of the evolution of Canadian federalism follows in later units. Notes on Terms concurrent powers: Legislative responsibilities that are assigned by the constitution to both levels of government. In Canada’s case, immigration, agriculture, pensions, and the export of natural resources are designated matters of concurrent jurisdiction. constitution: A constitution is a document that contains the “rules of the political game.” Put more formally, it is the set of fundamental laws, customs, and conventions providing the framework within which government is exercised in a state. Federalism requires a formal written constitution with the division of powers clearly spelled out in a single document. The Constitution Act: Canada’s core constitutional document (known until 1982 as the British North America Act). declaratory power: This quasi­federal power allows the federal parliament to pass legislation declaring a local work to be “for the general advantage of Canada.” This power enables the federal government to regulate various physical entities in the national interest. disallowance: This quasi­federal power allows the federal cabinet to annul any piece of provincial legislation within one year of its passage. Disallowance was used frequently in the early years of Confederation, but has not been used since 1943. https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 19/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide enumerated powers: An enumerated power (or heading) is an area of government authority assigned exclusively to one government, or the other, or both, by the constitution. The enumerated powers in the Canadian constitution can be found in Sections 91 through 95 of the Constitution Act. externalities: Externality is a word often used in the study of economics. Simply put, it means spill­over or overlap. Stevenson notes that the avoidance of externalities serves as one of the criteria that have determined the distribution of legislative powers in Canada. As a general rule, governments should not be given powers that easily allow them to affect the residents of other constituent units. In Canada’s case, the avoidance of externalities justifies federal control of matters that affect two or more provinces; for example, interprovincial transportation, money and banking, or interprovincial trade. paramountcy: The designation of which government takes precedence should federal and provincial laws conflict in concurrent areas of responsibility. In Canada, the federal government possesses paramountcy in the areas of immigration and agriculture, and in the export of natural resources. Provinces possess paramountcy in the administration of pensions. reservation: This constitutional provision allows the Lieutenant­Governor of any province to evade the responsibility for giving or refusing royal assent to provincial legislation by sending a provincial statute to the federal government for the latter to decide its fate. This quasi­federal power has not been invoked since 1961. residual power: The provision of the constitution assigning to the federal government all legislative matters not specifically mentioned in the enumerated headings. Study Questions When you have read the assigned reading and the commentary, test your understanding of the material by answering the following study questions. You will find it helpful to write out your answers in full sentences or a brief paragraph. If you have difficulty, review the relevant material. If you still cannot answer the question, please contact your tutor for assistance. 1. How is responsibility for a given policy area determined? 2. Which level of government possesses constitutional authority over each of the following matters? (Constitution Act) paying price supports to prairie wheat farmers setting doctor’s fees the settlement of political refugees awarding oil leases limiting automobiles imported from Japan setting telephone rates old age pension payments television broadcasting financial institutions https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 20/21 10/1/2018 Unit 2 - Study Guide industrial relations consumer protection criminal law the incorporation of companies the construction of a new pulp and paper plant on a major inland waterway taxing gasoline and cigarettes university education unemployment insurance the sale and consumption of alcohol 3. Would it be possible and/or desirable to return to the type of federalism that the Fathers of Confederation envisioned in the 1860s? Why, or why not? (Commentary) TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202 21/21 10/1/2018 Unit 1 - Study Guide Unit 1 ­ Study Guide Unit 1 ­ Study Guide Site: Course: Book: Printed by: Date: Faculty of Hu...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Gr...


Anonymous
Excellent! Definitely coming back for more study materials.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags