political science essay on canadian federalism

User Generated

fz288

Writing

Description

- Please look at the attached word file titled " assignment 3 poli 390 " it will have all the information.

- make sure you take your time and get familiar with the course readings included because the professor likes the essay to show that your are very familiar with the course and its themes.

- include sources other than ones in supplementary.


Unformatted Attachment Preview

10/1/2018 Unit 5 - Study Guide Unit 5 ­ Study Guide Unit 5 ­ Study Guide Site: Course: Book: Printed by: Date: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences POLI 390: Canadian Federalism_ May2010 Unit 5 ­ Study Guide Sara Al­Marashdeh Monday, 1 October 2018, 8:23 AM MDT https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2205 1/3 10/1/2018 Unit 5 - Study Guide Table of contents Overview Learning Objectives Reading Assignment Commentary Notes on Terms Study Questions https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2205 2/3 10/1/2018 Unit 5 - Study Guide Unit 5 The Drive for Self­ Determination: Aboriginal Self­ Government Overview Unit 4 described Quebec’s quest for self­determination. Unit 5 describes a similar, but more difficult and complex, quest by Canada’s Aboriginal peoples, and its implications for Canadian federalism. Aboriginal demands for self­ government have grown in recent years, but the appropriate response to those demands will require considerable imagination and skill, given the cultural and geographic divisions among the Aboriginal population and their intermingling with non­Aboriginals in the same territory. Meanwhile, some progress has been made on settling land claims and in implementing the rights guaranteed to Aboriginals by the Constitution. TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2205 3/3 10/1/2018 Unit 4 - Study Guide Unit 4 ­ Study Guide Unit 4 ­ Study Guide Site: Course: Book: Printed by: Date: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences POLI 390: Canadian Federalism_ May2010 Unit 4 ­ Study Guide Sara Al­Marashdeh Monday, 1 October 2018, 8:22 AM MDT https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2204 1/14 10/1/2018 Unit 4 - Study Guide Table of contents Overview Learning Objectives Reading Assignment Commentary Notes on Terms Study Questions https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2204 2/14 10/1/2018 Unit 4 - Study Guide Unit 4 The Drive for Self­ Determination: Quebec Nationalism Overview Unit 3 examined the evolution of the Canadian federal system. Specifically, it examined factors that have contributed to long­term political decentralization and the rise of regionalism. Unit 4 continues this analysis by focusing on how nationalism and the drive for self­determination have affected the operation of the Canadian federation. It sets out the historical position of Quebec within Confederation and analyses the actions of particular Quebec premiers that have led to the attenuation of federal power. TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2204 3/14 10/1/2018 Unit 4 - Study Guide Unit 4 The Drive for Self­ Determination: Quebec Nationalism Learning Objectives When you have completed Unit 4, you should be able to achieve the following learning objectives. 1. Discuss how the Canadian state defines and recognizes newly mobilized cultural identities. 2. Describe how the Canadian state has attempted to accommodate cultural differences. 3. Differentiate between the concept of dualism and multiculturalism, and explain why these two concepts are in tension within the Canadian system. 4. Outline the basic linguistic and cultural concerns of Canada’s French­speaking community. 5. Identify and discuss the two alternative strategies used by Quebec political leaders in their dealings with the federal government. 6. Give reasons why the Quiet Revolution is considered a watershed in the history of Quebec. 7. Discuss the concept of “special status,” and differentiate between de jure and de facto special status. 8. Discuss the relationship between identity and the need for recognition, and describe the different ways in which groups can build a positive collective identity. 9. Identify the origins of the Quebec separatist movement. 10. Discuss what was involved in the sovereignty­association proposal of the Parti Québécois. TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2204 4/14 10/1/2018 Unit 4 - Study Guide Unit 4 The Drive for Self­ Determination: Quebec Nationalism Reading Assignment Chapter 4: “Conceiving Diversity: Dualism, Multiculturalism, and Multinationalism,” by Kenneth McRoberts, in New Trends in Canadian Federalism, 2nd ed., edited by Rocher and Smith, pp. 85–109. Chapter 5: “A Province Unlike the Others,” in Unfulfilled Union, 5th ed., by Garth Stevenson, pp. 94–123. Reading 2: “Explaining Quebec Nationalism,” by Stéphane Dion, in the Reading File. Chapter 12: “Quebec’s Role in Canadian Federal­Provincial Relations,” by Jacques Bourgault, in Canada: The State of the Federation 2002: Reconsidering the Institutions of Canadian Federalism, edited by Meekison, Telford, and Lazar, pp. 341–376. TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2204 5/14 10/1/2018 Unit 4 - Study Guide Unit 4 The Drive for Self­ Determination: Quebec Nationalism Commentary In reviewing the evolution of the Canadian federal system, it quickly becomes apparent that Quebec is a province unlike the others. At the heart of this distinction is language. Unlike the situation elsewhere in Canada, the vast majority of Quebec residents continue to live and work in the French language. The desire to preserve and promote linguistic and cultural diversity was one of the prime reasons a federal system of government was adopted in 1867. Ever since Confederation, successive Quebec governments have been inspired by a strong sense of “nationalism”—a belief that Quebec represents something akin to a national homeland for French Canadians and a consequent desire to protect, almost at all costs, the French language and culture. Quebec nationalism historically has represented the most consistent destabilizing element in the federal system. Conflict between Quebec City and Ottawa characterizes every period of Canadian history. Before 1960, the Quebec government stood at the forefront of what has been labelled the “provincial rights movement.” During this period, Quebec regularly opposed the use of the quasi­federal powers; blocked real or imagined intrusions into provincial areas of jurisdiction; and insisted on a literalist interpretation of the division of powers. This strategy of defensive nationalism is closely associated with, first, Premier Honore Mercier (1887–91) and, later, Premier Maurice Duplessis (1936–39 and 1944–59). Each closely held to the compact theory of Confederation, which had first been formulated shortly before Mercier took office. However most Quebec premiers from Mercier onward took essentially the same position, regardless of which party they belonged to. Beginning with the great political and social changes of the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s, the strategy of the Quebec government shifted from defensive to offensive nationalism. The Quiet Revolution is associated with several major changes in Quebec society which resulted from a complex series of social forces—urbanization, industrialization, and secularization—which produced a new, politically active middle class. During those years Quebec built a modern public service and a number of state agencies which intervened actively in both social and economic affairs. At the same time, and partly as a consequence, the power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church, which had dominated civil society in Quebec at least since the 1840s, was drastically diminished. Another major change was the shift from the traditional, conservative, defensive form of nationalism to a modern, aggressive nationalism using the state as the prime instrument of change. Many, although not all, of the neo­nationalists came to the conclusion that Quebec should become a completely sovereign state in order to realize its potential. Quebec Premier Jean Lesage, elected in 1960, saw the need for a strong and activist Quebec state with an effective public service and the necessary powers and financial resources to stimulate economic and social development. As a result, Quebec took the initiative in proposing changes to Canada’s constitutional arrangements. Since that time Quebec governments have usually advocated either more powers for Quebec within Confederation, or, alternatively, complete political sovereignty, possibly combined with continuing economic association with the rest of Canada. Although by no means all provincial politicians in Quebec favour sovereignty, those who do not favour it generally advocate additional powers for Quebec in a reformed constitution. This could be achieved either by asymmetrical federalism (more powers for Quebec only, while the other provinces would retain their present status) or else a general decentralization that would give more powers to all of the provinces. https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2204 6/14 10/1/2018 Unit 4 - Study Guide From 1960 to 1976, Quebec’s search for greater jurisdictional autonomy centred on the negotiation of special administrative arrangements with the federal government and an attempt to expand provincial powers through the process of formal constitutional reform. In the early 1960s, Quebec established its own pension plan rather than participating in the Canada Pension Plan. It was also allowed to “opt out” of certain federal­provincial shared­ cost programs, receiving fiscal compensation instead. Quebec also began to conduct direct relations with foreign governments, particularly that of France—a development that greatly disturbed the federal government. It was also during this period that the government of Quebec actively began to promote and protect the French language and culture. The declining francophone birth rate, and the tendency of immigrants in Montreal to adopt English rather than French as their new language, caused concern that Montreal might become a predominantly English­speaking city. In 1972 the Gendron Royal Commission, established three years earlier to investigate the status of the French language, recommended measures to encourage the use of French as a language of work. The first comprehensive language law enacted in Quebec was Bill 22. Passed in 1974 by the government of Robert Bourassa, Bill 22 declared French to be the official language of Quebec. It required private firms wishing to obtain government contracts to pursue a policy of “francization,” and required the predominance of French on all public signs within the province. The most controversial aspect of Bill 22 involved an effort to channel the children of immigrants into the French school system. The law required all students wishing to enrol in schools where English was the language of instruction to pass an English proficiency test. After 1976 a new dynamic was added to the federal system. The election of the separatist Parti Québécois represented the first direct challenge to Canada’s constitutional regime. This event, and the subsequent referendum on sovereignty­association, served as the catalyst for extensive constitutional discussions between the federal government and the provinces, and the final patriation of the Canadian constitution in 1982. The new premier, Réné Lévesque, moved to strengthen the Bourassa government’s Bill 22 by replacing it with Bill 101 in 1977. Bill 101 made French the sole official language of the government, courts, schools, and economy of Quebec. Under this legislation, members of the Quebec National Assembly could debate in English, and litigation involving individual citizens could be heard in the courts in English, but only the French versions of debates, documents, and court proceedings were deemed to be official. Businesses employing more than fifty persons were required to conduct their operations in French, including the negotiation of labour contracts. All public signs, posters, and advertising were required to be in French. In education, the law restricted the English­language school system to the children of the resident English minority, although special exemptions were allowed for temporary residents of the province. In 1979 the Supreme Court of Canada found parts of Bill 101 dealing with the legislature and the courts in contradiction with Section 133 of the Constitution Act. In 1984 the Court ruled that sections of Bill 101 restricting the English­ language school rights of Canadians moving into Quebec from other provinces were in conflict with provisions of the new Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 1988 the French only sign policy met a similar fate and was ruled invalid by the Supreme Court. It was replaced by a law that allows English on commercial signs as long as the French lettering is larger than the English lettering. The image of Quebec police enforcing this law by pulling out measuring tapes to compare the size of French and English lettering was viewed as either highly comical or blatantly discriminatory by most anglophones in Canada. For the Québécois who feel that their language is threatened, restricting the use of English is Quebec is justified if it serves to protect and promote the use of French. They argue that the overwhelming predominance of English in North America, and increasingly in the world, requires some restriction of individual liberties if French is to be preserved. Whatever one’s perspective is, Quebec language laws illustrate the passion that the politics of language evokes. The outcome of the 1980 referendum and the electoral defeat of the Parti Quebecois in 1985, after nine years in office, convinced some observers that “separatism is dead.” However, the failure of Canada to recognize Quebec’s national identity in its constitution contributed to the election of a new Parti Quebecois government in 1994, and a second referendum a year later. The outcome of the 1995 referendum was an extremely narrow victory for the federalist option, a victory that Premier Jacques Parizeau accurately but tactlessly attributed to “money and ethnic votes.” Although the PQ returned to the https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2204 7/14 10/1/2018 Unit 4 - Study Guide opposition benches in 2003, the option of sovereignty continues to command widespread support in Quebec, although the passion and militancy of earlier years seems, at least for the time being, to be lacking. The first assigned reading for this unit was written by Kenneth McRoberts, a scholar who has written extensively on the province of Quebec. McRoberts’s chapter is not focused exclusively on Quebec, but provides a more generalized picture of how cultural difference is accommodated in the Canadian federal system. McRoberts analyses which cultural identities have been recognized by the Canadian state and how the state is responding to newly mobilizing cultural groups. He also examines the tension between two federally sanctioned policies: multiculturalism and dualism. The assigned reading from the Stevenson text focuses on Quebec, providing a general overview of Quebec’s role within the federal system from the pre­Confederation period to the defeat of the Parti Québécois government in 1986. Stevenson’s analysis is interesting because he focuses on the changing nature of Quebec society and the internal forces (political, economic, and social) that account for the relatively high degree of conflict between the provincial government and the federal government. The strength of the Stevenson reading lies in the chronological examination of Quebec nationalism, the identification of important historical events, and the elaboration of the long­ standing linguistic disputes between Quebec’s French­ speaking majority and its English­ speaking minority. Missing from the discussion is the federalist constitutional perspective; the view of some Quebecers (best symbolized by former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau[1]) that a strong federal government can serve as the best line of defense for the protection of the French language and culture, not just in Quebec, but throughout Canada. The conflict between these two conceptions of Confederation, each rooted in French­Canadian political thought, serves as the source of much of the dynamic tension that has always existed in federal­provincial relations. The assigned reading by Stephane Dion, an academic when he wrote it and now leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, provides a concise explanation of why many people in Quebec want a sovereign state. Dion attributes the strength of Quebec nationalism to three factors: (1) fear that the French language is in danger of disappearing; (2) confidence that Quebec has the capabilities to be a successful independent nation­state; and (3) a feeling of rejection because anglophone Canada has refused to recognize Quebec’s national identity in the constitution. The final assigned reading, by Jacques Bourgault, assesses Quebec’s role in federal­ provincial relations since the early 1960s. He concludes that Quebec’s influence over the evolution of Canadian federalism has been less than many Canadians believe, that it reached its peak in the 1960s, and that it has actually declined in recent years. Quebec has not really achieved any of its objectives in terms of formal amendments to the constitution, and its gains in terms of administrative arrangements have been limited and are not necessarily permanent. In studying Quebec in the context of Canadian federalism, it is critical to understand that all recent Quebec governments, regardless of their political ideology, have attempted to enhance the province’s cultural, fiscal, and political autonomy in the hope of achieving either a form of de facto (i.e., administrative) or de jure (i.e., constitutional) special status. Ultimately, the pursuit of this special status has not only benefited Quebec, but the other provinces as well. By advocating a concept of provincial equality, other provinces have succeeded in using the threat of Quebec independence to advance their own political and constitutional agendas. A more comprehensive analysis of past federal­provincial constitutional discussions follows in Unit 6. First, however, Unit 5 focuses on another group of Canadians who are seeking cultural and political self­determination: Canada’s Aboriginal peoples. Be sure to use the learning objectives and study questions as guides to the assigned readings. https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2204 8/14 10/1/2018 Unit 4 - Study Guide [1] Trudeau’s views on federalism and Quebec nationalism are summarized in his book Federalism and the French Canadians (Toronto: Macmillan, 1968). TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2204 9/14 10/1/2018 Unit 4 - Study Guide Unit 4 The Drive for Self­ Determination: Quebec Nationalism Notes on Terms Action Democratique (ADQ): A political party formed in 1994 by dissident members of the Quebec Liberal Party. It is more nationalist than the Liberals, but is conservative on economic issues. Allaire Report: A report by a constitutional task force of the Quebec Liberal Party which was prepared after the collapse of the Meech Lake accord in 1990. The report recommended a radically decentralized form of Canadian federalism. After Premier Bourassa refused to endorse the report, the chairman of the task force helped to form the ADQ (see above). asymmetrical federalism: A type of federalism in which one or more of the provinces or states has more formal authority or status than the others. The term “special status” (see below) conveys essentially the same idea. Belanger­Campeau Commission: A committee created by the National Assembly after the collapse of the Meech Lake Accord. It was constructed so as to include federalists and sovereignists in approximately equal numbers. The Commission recommended that Quebec hold a referendum in 1992, either on sovereignty or on an “offer” of constitutional changes from the federal government. Bill 101: Name popularly given to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language, adopted by the National Assembly in 1977. Designed to preserve the French language and to improve the social and economic position of those who speak it, it is overwhelmingly popular in francophone Quebec. A few of its provisions have been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. Bloc Québécois: A political party that was originally a grouping of dissident members of parliament from Quebec drawn primarily from the ranks of the Conservative Party. The Bloc Québécois was created soon after the Meech Lake Accord failed. The objective of the Bloc Québécois is to promote Quebec independence through political activities at the federal level. compact theory: See definition in Unit 2, Part 2.1. Constitution Act of 1791: In some texts this is called the “Constitutional Act” of 1791. This act of the British parliament created the political units of Upper and Lower Canada and established a system of representative government in the two colonies. de facto: administrative; that is, what happens in practice. de jure: formal; that is, delineated in the constitution. defensive nationalism: A political strategy of the government of Quebec based on a strict, literalist interpretation of the constitution, a defense of provincial autonomy, and a rejection of any changes to the original Confederation agreement. Defensive nationalism is most often associated with the government of Premier Maurice Duplessis. distinct society clause: This was the most controversial element of the Meech Lake Accord. It was meant to be a new interpretative clause, which would be placed in Section 2 of the Constitution Act. The distinct society clause recognized Canada as a partnership between English­ and French­ speaking peoples, and Quebec’s position as a distinct society within Canada. It gave federal and provincial governments the responsibility of preserving https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2204 10/14 10/1/2018 Unit 4 - Study Guide Canada’s bilingual and bicultural character, and gave the Quebec government the additional responsibility of preserving and protecting Quebec’s distinct (i.e., French) character. Front de liberation du Québéc (FLQ): This revolutionary group, formed in the early 1960s, attempted to secure the independence of Quebec through the use of political propaganda and acts of political terrorism. In 1970 several members of an FLQ cell kidnapped British Trade Commissioner James Cross and Quebec Labour Minister Pierre Laporte. Laporte was later murdered and Cross was released in exchange for safe passage out of Canada. The movement ceased activities a few years later after a successful campaign against it by the RCMP. maitres chez nous: This phrase was the political slogan used by the Liberal government of Jean Lesage in the 1962 Quebec provincial election. Simply translated, it means “masters in our own house.” The slogan was first coined by Fr. Lionel Groulx and was used by Resources Minister René Lévesque to support a plan for the nationalization of hydroelectricity operations in the province. nationalism: Nationalism identifies the nation as the primary political value. Nationalism can involve: (1) a sentiment of loyalty to a nation; (2) an attitude attaching high importance to the distinctive characteristics of a nation; (3) a tendency to consider exclusively the interests of one’s own nation over the interests of other nations; (4) a doctrine maintaining that national cultures should be preserved; and (5) a political theory that humanity is naturally divided into nations and that each nation is entitled to its own government. October Crisis: The name given to the events surrounding the kidnapping of two hostages by the FLQ in October 1970 and the consequent invocation of the War Measures Act by the Trudeau government. offensive nationalism: A political strategy of the Quebec government calling for the ceding of administrative and constitutional powers by the federal government to Quebec. Offensive nationalism is associated with Quebec’s drive for special status and underlies the position of most Quebec premiers since 1960. Parti Québécois (PQ): A political party formed in 1968 by René Lévesque to promote the cause of sovereignty for Quebec. The PQ has been the governing party in Quebec for a total of eighteen years. patriation: The transfer of the power to amend the Canadian Constitution (i.e., legislative sovereignty) from Great Britain to Canada. Patriation took place in 1982. Quebec Act of 1774: This act of the British parliament defined the territory of the conquered colony of Quebec and the rights of its citizens. The Quebec Act granted freedom of worship for Roman Catholics and sanctioned the use of French civil law. Government institutions were restricted to a legislative council appointed by the colonial governor. Quebec Referendum: Two events are referred to here. The first was a vote of the Quebec electorate held on 20 May 1980 to consider the request of the Lévesque government for a mandate to negotiate sovereignty­association. The Referendum question was defeated by a 60 to 40 margin. A second vote on the question of sovereignty was conducted by the Parizeau government on 30 October 1995, in which 49.4% of the votes were in favour of a sovereign Quebec. Quiet Revolution: This term refers to the changes that took place in Quebec during the 1960s which saw the modernization of Quebec society and the rise of a politically active middle class. The Quiet Revolution is linked to the Liberal government of Jean Lesage (1960–1966) and the slogan maitres chez nous. separatism: A movement or idea promoting the secession of one state, province, or region from a larger political entity. The term was first used in Ireland around 1900 to describe the movement for separating that country from the United Kingdom. Separatism was popular idea in Quebec in the 1960s; however, supporters of Quebec independence today prefer not to use the word “separatism” on the grounds that it sounds too negative. sovereignty: In international law, “sovereignty” denotes the status of being a fully independent actor in international relations. Canada is generally considered to have become sovereign with the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Many people in Quebec believe that Quebec should achieve sovereignty in its own right. https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2204 11/14 10/1/2018 Unit 4 - Study Guide sovereignty­association: This name was given to the political and economic arrangement between Canada and an independent Quebec proposed by the Parti Québécois in the referendum campaign of 1980. Sovereignty­association would have involved full political autonomy for Quebec, including a seat at the United Nations, but with continuing economic ties to the rest of Canada. Economic links would include a common currency, the free trade of goods and services, and a common external tariff policy. An international treaty and a number of permanent intergovernmental institutions would govern relations between Canada and Quebec. After about 1990 the PQ began to place less emphasis on the need for a formal association with the rest of Canada. special status: An objective sought by Quebec political leaders recognizing that Quebec, as the historic homeland of French­speaking Canadians and the only province with a French­ speaking majority, is a distinctive province and should be treated differently from the others. Quebec premiers have sought both de facto (i.e., administrative) and de jure (i.e., constitutional) special status in the post­1960 period. Union Nationale: A conservative, nationalist political party formed in Quebec in 1936. The UN originally joined Conservatives and reform­minded Liberals under the leadership of Maurice Duplessis. The party formed the government of Quebec from 1936 to 1939, 1944 to 1960, and 1966 to 1970. It ceased to exist in the 1980s. TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2204 12/14 10/1/2018 Unit 4 - Study Guide Unit 4 The Drive for Self­ Determination: Quebec Nationalism 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 has the Canadian state defined and recognized newly mobilized cultural identities? (McRoberts) 2. How has the Canadian state attempted to accommodate cultural differences? (McRoberts) 3. How do the concepts of dualism and multiculturalism differ? Why would some say that the two concepts are incompatible within the Canadian federal system? 4. What makes Quebec’s position within Confederation different from that of the other nine provinces? (Commentary; Stevenson) 5. a. How has the nature of Quebec’s political economy affected relations between English­ and French­speaking residents of the province? (Stevenson) b. How are language and economic status interconnected in Quebec? (Stevenson) 6. a. What is the compact theory of Confederation? (Stevenson) b. Which Quebec political leaders have emphasized the compact theory? (Stevenson) c. How did the compact theory assist the pursuit of defensive nationalism? (Stevenson) 7. a. What was the Quiet Revolution? (Commentary; Stevenson) b. What social changes are associated with the Quiet Revolution? (Stevenson) c. What economic changes are associated with the Quiet Revolution? (Stevenson) d. What political changes are associated with the Quiet Revolution? (Stevenson) 8. How did the Quiet Revolution alter Quebec’s approach to federal­ provincial relations? (Bourgault) 9. What gains has Quebec achieved in its relations with the federal government and the other provinces since 1960? Why has it not achieved more? (Bourgault) 10. What does “special status” mean? What is the difference between de jure and de facto special status? (Commentary; Stevenson) 11. What is the relationship between Quebec’s language policy and its drive for more autonomy? (Commentary, Dion) 12. What led some Quebecois to consider the idea of Quebec independence? Was Quebec separatism a logical consequence of the Quiet Revolution? Why, or why not? (Dion) 13. Why does Quebec feel “rejected” by Canadians outside Quebec? What can be done about it? (Dion) https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2204 13/14 10/1/2018 Unit 4 - Study Guide 14. Why has Quebec’s influence over Canadian federalism declined in recent years? (Bourgault) TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2204 14/14 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 7 - Study Guide Unit 7 ­ Study Guide Unit 7 ­ Study Guide Site: Course: Book: Printed by: Date: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences POLI 390: Canadian Federalism_ May2010 Unit 7 ­ Study Guide Sara Al­Marashdeh Monday, 1 October 2018, 8:24 AM MDT https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2207 1/4 10/1/2018 Unit 7 - Study Guide Table of contents Overview Learning Objectives Reading Assignment Commentary Notes on Terms Study Questions https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2207 2/4 10/1/2018 Unit 7 - Study Guide Unit 7 The Courts and Judicial Review Overview To date, our examination of Canadian federalism has been primarily historical. Unit 2 reviewed the origins of the Canadian federal system. Unit 3 moved on to explore the general tendency toward a more decentralized federal system that developed in the years after Confederation. Units 4 and 5 explored the impact of Quebec nationalism and the desire of Aboriginal peoples for self­government on Canadian federalism. Unit 6 analysed the events surrounding the patriation of the Canadian constitution and subsequent constitutional negotiations. Unit 7 changes the level of analysis. Unit 7 focuses on the day­to­day operation of the federal system and the institutions that manage conflict between the federal government and the provinces, beginning with a discussion of the judiciary and the role of the courts in interpreting the division of powers. TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2207 3/4 10/1/2018 Unit 7 - Study Guide Unit 7 The Courts and Judicial Review Learning Objectives When you have completed Unit 7, you should be able to achieve the following learning objectives. 1. Describe what judicial review involves, and give reasons why it is necessary in a federal system of government. 2. Identify the major constitutional rulings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and discuss the significance of these rulings. 3. Identify the major constitutional rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada, and discuss the significance of these rulings. 4. Assess the charge that the Supreme Court of Canada is biased toward the federal government in its interpretation of the constitution. 5. Evaluate the current proposals for the reform of the Supreme Court of Canada. 6. Define the concept of the rule of law, and explain how it justifies judicial action. 7. Discuss the discretionary role the Court has in interpreting the constitution. 8. Discuss how liberal ideology (the protection of individual rights) colours judicial interpretation. 9. Describe the tension between judicial activism and judicial restraint with respect to interpreting the constitution. TOP https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2207 4/4 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 ...
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

Here you go. In case o...


Anonymous
Just the thing I needed, saved me a lot of time.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags