9/7/2011 3:32:00 PM
Class1:
Buy the brief version of the book Parameters only. All other lectures are provided on WebCT.
Issues in Governing Canada:
Declining voting rate shows that Canadians are dissatisfied by our democratic process which is not great even if we are well seen by other countries. The electoral system is not faire since it does not transfer votes into seats properly.
Democratic Deficit. Shows we do not have a perfect government. Another problem is that the prime minister has a lot of powers and it affects other peoples’ decisions.
The judges have a lot of power and the charter gives judges a lot of power.
Power is too concentrated in this country and there is not enough balance.
People have more confidence in the courts than in the parliament electives.
The constitution is too much about inter-government relations instead of relations between the people and their government.
The institutions have not changed much since the creation of Canada in
1867 in terms of how the government is made with prime minister, cabinet, senate, courts, etc.
I have to be able to explain every institution. Example: What is the senate?
What is the electoral system? Who are the actors? What is a federal system and what is the nature of the federal system in 2011? How did it change in the past?
Assessments are ideas or opinions or evaluations about the policy or institutional analysis.

First exam will be more descriptive.
Second exam will have more Analysis
Third exam will have both descriptive and analysis.
We used to have a system of check and balances like the US government with the House of Representatives and the senate that battle each other on decisions, which is good. Comparing to us where the Prime Minister has all the power when he is majority government.
Class 2:
What is an institution? Who are the actors of an institution? What is the relationship between and among institutions? Why did those relationship change over time? Are those changes good or bad for Canada? Describe,
Analyze and explain, evaluate!
Mallory talks about checks and balances. At the time, one institution could check another institution. Which we had in 1867. (Read Mallory’s article about the theory of check and balances) Now the cabinet cannot have power over the prime minister anymore because the prime minister has too much power because he is the one that elects the member of the cabinet. The check that cabinet had on the prime minister has significantly diminished.
Now, we the people have the power to check on the government when comes election.
Power: If a constitution has power over another one
Institutions: The system of rules that define the roles that people play as a part of those institutions.
Look back in the first slideshow for explanations on Institutions, etc… (last slides)
Dignified Power-- Symbolic power (The example that in Canada we have a
Queen)

Efficient Power-- The way things actually work and get done…who has the power!!
The constitution is there to set the boundaries and the rules for the structure of power. It talks about the set of rules between relationships between the government and the people, the courts, the other institutions, etc.. Also, the rules between the federal and provincial government. Constitution are grounded set of rules about who are we, what we want, etc.. It goes beyons institutions and talks about let’s say, we will treat everyone the same whether they are black brown or yellow, rich or poor, etc…
October 4 th 1058, French constitution!!
Key Issues of the Constitution:
-Entrenched constitutional law
-Non-entrenched constitutional law (example of the vito’s) (clarity act)
-Judicial decisions/case law
-Constitutional conventions
-Norms
Class 3:
No lecture on the 19 th or 21 st of September. Lecture on the 23 rd .
The constitution of Canada is the Supreme law of Canada. The court decides if something is wrong or right since they are called the guardians of the constitution.
Constitution is:
-Rule book for the conduct of political life.
-Defines key relationship between executive, legislature and judical institution.

-Between levels of government(provincial and governmental)
-Between citizens and their government
-Represents basic values of political system.
ASK CLEAR QUESTION if you want to separate simply ask do you want to separate. Québécois are a nation within a united Canada. Harper said.
Quebec asks for distinct recognization, distinct status, Quebec has all the power it needs and could have done whatever they wanted if they wish in the past but simply didn’t do it due to unclear question that did not make the majority of the province wanting to separate.
From 1867 until 1949, there was no supreme court. Until 1949, federal government had way more power than the provinces. Post 1985 decisions had a lot to do with the Supreme Court and they are also part of the constitution.
Supreme court also has to make decision on grey areas of the constitution where for example it doesn’t clearly state if it goes under provincial or federal law.
Unwritten not legally binding part of the constitution, but have substantial politics power. Understandings. (Constitutional conventions) Queen, Senate,
House of Commons. Should be the way it is but the convention is that the
Queen or Governor general does not actually give any judgement to the decisions house of commons decide. The governor general only signs it now. So this is a constitutional convention in the way that this is the new way it is done.
Conferences start next week: Issues of the Constitution, Governor general.
Week of the 18.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land and so that reinforces the power of the constitution as a check. Also reinforces the power of the courts has a check.
Is the crown or Governor general is dignified or is it an efficient part of the political system.
Some people say the governor general have a lot of people while other say the gg has no power at all and is simply a dignified part of our political system.
The original role of the monarch is: Head of state, Representative and
Official of the British Government.
In 1926, there was the balfour declaration that Canadianized the office of the governor genral giving it less of an impact in our political system. Last step in canadianizing the governor general was in 1952 when governor general began to be a Canadian member. It allowed some debate because members of Canadian government were scared that the gg could have some political preferences that would disadvantage the government in power since the GG would be a Canadian itself who probably had its own political beliefs.
Which is why now the Prime minister with approval of the Queen pretty much chooses the GG.
Also, in 1931, there was the Statute of Westminster.
Prime minister’s role is: Head of the government.
If the governor general believes that a law passed by Canada is in conflict with British laws then the governor general can refuse to sign it. For a law to be approved, it needs to be approved by the House of Commons then the senate then signed by the governor general. The governor general can resign to sign a law. Which is called power of reservation. Then she sends it to England and then they will analyze the law and the Queen will take the final answer.
Main functions of the governor general:

Formal Officially the commander in chief. GG has to sign every piece of formal legislature.
Powers/Roles  GG appoints the Prime Minister (however, it goes with elections so she only appoints the one who won the election.) However, if elections would be close at the end, the GG could decide which one is going to win even though this party has not won the elections. Because at first, the House of Commons is supposed to choose the government. If the prime dies during a mandate, the GG would then take care of the party and designate a new leader. Can the governor general refuse for an Election?
Yes, it has the power to say no to the demand of the prime to go into elections.
Reserve Powers  Power to say no to the demand of the prime to go into elections is also a reserve power.
First two parts of the exam consist of identification question. Section 17 consists of … for example.
Third part. Reservation: tell the description
Significance: reflected the colonial relationship that Canada had…
The house of commons elects the government in the fact that if the government is minority than the house may show a vote of non confidence and in this case, the GG would then elect the leader of the second biggest party to become Prime minister. The GG is aloud to dismiss the Prime minister.
Regarding the prorogation of the House, the GG allowed Harper to do it since she did not think switching him by someone else would resolve the situation
Canada was in at this time. Also the PM had also said that he would be back in a couple of days with a new budget that would pass. Both these incentives made her accept the proposition of Harper to suspend the house.
In Britain, the power of prorogation is not one of the PM’s.
Dissolution is another power of the GG. The prime minister is the only person who can approach the GG to ask her for an election. Can the governor general call an election on her own? No, she can only call an

election on advice of the Prime. The GG may be a check on the PM. The
House should elect the GG.
Who appoints the Governor general?
A group of people consisting of political people chooses the Governor
General.
What are the characteristics of potential GG?
-They have to be neutral and have no partisan of any party.
-To be a good GG, you should not have been involved in any Party before.
The house of common is at the center of the State. It is the place where the
PM and his cabinet have to answer the populations questions through the deputy’s questions.
Representation: “one person, one vote!!” is a basic principle in representation but there are some fundamental discrepancies in Canada.
Territory: We have significant region significances in value of our vote. For example, some provinces are overrepresented since they are some provinces that are very loyal to a party. Senate floor rule in 1915 made it a rule that there are as many house representatives has the province has member of the senate. Then the representation act of 1985, made it that no province can go below the number of house representative they have in the previous year.
Constituencies: Large area’s or big cities should be represented more. As it is now, the one person, one vote proportion is not respected.
Voter Preferences:

Our vote system is not a majority voting system. Single member parolity.
You don’t need majority, yon only need to have one more vote than the closest one to you. This voting system was fin in the 1900’s when there was mainly only 2 party but now that there are many party, the winner of the election does not necesserely represent the majority of the population and sometimes very far from it when the votes are dispersed between parties. It is nonsense to say you have a mandate from the people when only 40% of the people voted for your party. This is called false majority. When you have a majority of the seats but not of the votes. Current electoral system does have its advantages. Very fast voting system that gives us within hours the new government. It also gives us stable government and it puts the power in the hands of the people. However, question can be asked when you say that voting stats go down every year. Our system is a Single member Plurality SMP. Major distortion of this system is that you can form a majority government with a minority of the Canadian overall votes if you are strong in some regions and win more seats. Regionally concentrated party are overly representated as an example the bloc who wins a lot of seats based on its regional interest. However, they don’t represent a majority of the Canadian votes.
Rire: Assemblé nationale. PK assemble nationale quand on sait très bien que c’est le parlement provincial.
Two main function of the HoC:
Representation: Main role is to represent the country. However, it is not representative of ages, not representative of culture (over mainly white), not representative of gender (over mainly men). New election of NDP diversifies the House with more young people and more women as well. We have a long way to go until the House is a mirror image of our Country in terms of gender, cultures, ages, etc.
Accountability: However, even if diversity was part of the House, what would it change? The member of the House which are usually members of a

party and they simply acquiesce to their leaders project. When you get elected and you are a backbencher, you turn into a train seals. In the fact that you do whatever your leader says to do.
Configuration of Power:
Executive centred: Has most of the power. Power is primaliry in the hands of the Prime minister and or Cabinet. Party discipline is crucial in this type of system. The executives have strict control on the MP’s.
Parliament has an insignificant role in policy making in this type of system.
This is what we are in CANADA. Maybe the most executive centred system in all of the Political system in the world.
Parliament centred: Has lost lots of its power. Parliament is at the centre of the political system. One which has power t hold the government accountable, to have the power to make it work, to check it, to make alternative government. The executive are dependant on the support of the
House in this system.
House of Commons’ 4 functions:
-To form a government; In most cases, the House does not elect the government. The elections does that. Only if there is a lack of confidence in the government in place that the House may have a decision in forming a government.
-To make a government work; approve what will be spent and how.
Parliament does not really decide anything. The government pretty much decides what is going to happen. The house does not really have the power to discipline the government.
-To make a government behave; be a watchdog. Same as above.
-To make an alternative government; where the opposition has the chance to challenge the government in power and raise questions whether the government in place is good or not for the population. Parliament is part of continuous election campaign.

However, if a government has majority,
EXAM IS IN LEACOCK 122
Topic 5: Parliament: The senate
The senate is unequal to the House of Commons in meaning but equal in law. The reality is that it is little loved, little admired and even less respected. It even discussed being abolished in the past. More in the 70’s and 80’s. They talked about changing the length of the terms. Before 1995, senators had mandate for life. 1867, Creation of the country (recall) The
Maritimes and Quebec did not want to be left out by the House of Commons that were mostly English. PEI wanted an elected senate. People did not want an elected senate however.
Senate has 2 major functions:
Legislative role: Second chamber within the parliament. Senate was made to improve laws but not to make laws themselves. Only to check them being a checking institutions. To be an effective check on the HOC. Was designed to protect minorities. John A Mcdonald said the senate is there to protect the minority and rich are minority (haha) . You had to have 4,000$ in property if you wanted to be appointed in the Senate to represent property rights. (4,000$ represents 250,000$ in our days) Also made to represent minorities; (regional, etc.)
They were there to express opinions to the HOC, sober opinions,etc.
Part of the federal system: There are some disproportional representation now in the senate since it has been put in place long time ago and representing the geographic realities of the time. The senate was denied legitimacy because it was an appointed body that was appointed by only one person which was the Prime minister so it suspected interest and was denied credibility as a legitimate body within the democracy. Pierre Trudeau 1968-
1979 appointed 60 senators and most of them were Liberals. The problem was supposed to be an effective check to represent regions but how would

you conclude that your senators represent your interest if you are liberal and your senators are all conservative because the PM is conservative and names only conservative party members to the senate since he has the power to do so.
Intrastate: within the state: the senate as a federal institution was there to represent regions within the federal government.
Interstate federalism: Provincial vs federal
Senate today performs 4 or 5 main functions:
Refining Legislation: They have the power to refine them. However, the government tells them to do it within 48 hours so often they only stamp it and send it back.
Studying legislative proposal: Pre-study, where senators gather together and analyze new laws and then send a report to the government about what they think about that law.
Investigations: debates about issues of public policies that maybe do not come up to the public sometimes. Senate is good at pointing those out by investigations. (Airport security, Defence policy, etc.)
Reward for party organizers: Retirement home for old member of the party, which deserve to being involved still.
Occasional check on government: Has to be careful when it challenges the government. However, they do have the power to do it. Bills cannot be introduced in the senate but they can be stopped in it. Which shows the power of the senate to authorize legislations.
Section 26: Sent a message to the majesty and ask to appoint 8 extra senators since the senate was not majority of his government and the senate was being foolish about not wanting to pass its legislations. And the king or crown in this case said No, since the Senate cannot have more senators than it is counted already.
Senate as an institution of Federal System: There to represent regions
Senate as a second chamber within parliament:

Senate reform proposal:
-Triple “E” (Equal, Elected, Effective) That would have been a good plan and was popular in the early 80’s. However, the senate is not equal in terms of representative as of now so the province that are privileged by today’s senate do not want to allow the new proposal.
-Abolition: since the senate is not so useful but it will probably not happen.
Stephen Harper reform stipulations:
9 years term (non-renewable)
PM appoints after (consultative election)
Argued that non-renewable would take away the senate’s responsibility towards the government. And instead of keeping the senate an appointed one, it should be an elected one since this would give the senate more power since they will really be representatives of the people and will not need to agree to the PM’s proposition since they will not have been appointed by them.
In Quebec you have to be a member of one the 24 senatorial district
(showed in the map in the powerpoint). Based on the 1859 senatorial district and has not been changed since.
We would be better to abolish the senate than to approve Harper’s 2 stipulations.
Section 42: The method of selecting senators. To change this method requires 7 provinces representing 50 percent of the population plus the government.
The senate as only a sense of Vito on the House
Topic 6: The political Executive: The PM, Cabinet and Central
Agencies
How are the power relationships structured?

Prime Minister- Central Agencies- Cabinet
When we talk about how the checks lost some of their checking power we are referring to the fact that they have lost some power. Senate is less of a check on the government. So is the house if the government has majority.
Now, important checks are the Provinces and the courts. They were not supposed to be the most significant checks at first but evolved to be.
“Cabinet is a focus group for the Prime Minister.”
“The unchallenged centre of power in the government of Canada is the
Cabinet”
“Cabinet is a mini-caucus, not a decision-making body.”
Has the centre of gravity shifted?
Yes it did, it shifted from the cabinet to the Prime Minister. Today it is more accurate to talk about Prime Minister government instead of Cabinet
Government. Prime Minister of Canada does not suffer many checks.
Cabinet (One of the conventions since it is not part of the
Constitution).
Those member of Parliament
Assigned direct management and control over an administrative unit usually a department although on occasion it could be a unit/section within a larger unit.
Who occupy a significant executive position eg. House Leader in HoC or government Leader in Senate or President of the Privy Council.
All those member of Cabinet are elected. However, you do not have to be elected to be a member of the Cabinet since some of them have been appointed but this is rare.
Cabinet and Prime Minister are conventions since they do not appear in the
Constitution.
Section 11 of the Constitution: There should be a council to advise ---Privy.

Collective responsibility: The principle of collective responsibility is collectively responsible to the policy decision from the cabinet to the other member of the House. Ministers are responsible to one another. Any member of the cabinet has no discretion. To prevent the government from being divided. Presents a united front to the electorate. Keep quiet or you resign. Otherwise, the PM will fire you.
According to Malory; he describes collective responsibility in a majority government as a democratic fiction. It is almost impossible for the House of
Common to keep the government responsible. Most ministers just shut up even if the policy that is being brought up by the government is not one that they agree on.
Individual minister responsibility: Each minister is responsible for his own behavior within government. Our system of government on based on ministers who are responsible for their work in the department (minister of defense, etc) it is the minister that is responsible if a public issue happens.
Ministers are responsible for their own conducts. Ministers should be aware of all decisions going on in his department. If the prime minister is embarrassed enough by the actions of a minister then the minister will have to resign or the PM will fire him or her. For individual failure, it is not really true that the House is responsible. The individual is and will be fired by the government if not resigning. Ministers are not supposing to blame public servers or name them.
When government is in majority, it is almost impossible for the House to kick out a minister.
The conventions have changed and the meaning of individual responsibility now resides in one person’s responsibility; the PM. If he does not feel like you messed up enough or embarrassed him enough, he will not fire you.
Functions of the Political executive:
How do you become a member of cabinet; you have to be a member of parliament. You can be appointed to the cabinet but then will have to go through a bi-election. There is often one or
2 senators in the Cabinet to run the administration part of the Cabinet. A cabinet is a collective decision maker. You should support all decisions or

resign. You must support the decision even if you did not participate in a certain policy making. Cabinet is part of the dignified part of the constitution and not the most efficient.
Member of Cabinet: ranges from roughly 20 to 42(Harper)
Representation: Intra-state federalism; Cabinet has grown because all region have to be represented which is the reason why Cabinet has grown.
All provinces have to be part of the Cabinet and then some regions within
Provinces. Second component is that there has to be Protestants and
Catholics as member of the Cabinet. More or less our days. At first it was only men of the same religion until they started to have women and then different religion groups and then different ethnic groups, etc. Those changes influenced the growth of the Cabinet while decreasing its role and efficiency. On the PM’s side, those who helped the PM and encouraged him in its run to PM will most likely be appointed to Cabinet and strong offenders might be name as member of the Cabinet as well since the PM will want to keep them close to him.
There will be 2 new Supreme Court announcements. October 2011. One of them is unibilingual. Which is ok since it would significantly decrease the amount of judges to apply for Supreme Court if bilinguals were mandatory.
Cabinet is a mini-caucus and not a major decision body. Cabinet was supposed to be a check on the PM but it was also to be a check on individual ministers. Cabinet is not the policy making part of the government anymore.
Stages in Evolution of Cabinet as decision-making body
1867-1935: House of compensation/Patronage –> the PM pretty much ruled.
1935-1968: Departmentalized Cabinet  Transforms cabinet as a collective decision maker to centralized division. The cabinet as a whole made not many decision. The different department mostly made them. Was in a time when there was no communication like today so the ministers in the cabinet were very important and had a big role. So did the Deputy minister that

was just under the minister. Ministers and PM would fish or hunt together and together they would solve problems.
1968-1993: Institutionalized Cabinet  Now there is Cabinet, Ministers, cabinet committees, and then all the departments (health, transport,defence,etc). Changed so that the ministers have the power still and that the power does not go down the silo as in the departmentalized cabinet. If u were a member of cabinet committee, you needed to consult with the department in cause. Then cabinet committee brings it up to the minister and minister brings it on to the cabinet itself.
Cabinet plans the business of the house and legislations. It is not always a body cabinet decision making since often the PM just decides with a couple cabinet member.
Trudeau is the creator of institutionalized cabinet and he did not distrust the bureaucracy. However, we cannot say this about the current government.
Unintended consequences of the institutionalized cabinet:
Now, Prime minister sits at the top of everything, He and the PMO
(prime minister office) and PCO (Privy council office) are overlooking the cabinet now which is a change from before where the cabinet was a big group which had the PM in it instead of on top of it.
A central agency is any agency that has a substantial amount of coordinating legitimates authority to direct and intervene in the activities of departments.
Evolution and Traditional roles?
Do we continue to have collective government?
Has the centre of power shifted from cabinet to the PM?
PMO is made up of partisans of the PM in office.
PCO is in effect the cabinet secretary. Until the 1960’s the PCO was very minor, very few people. Acting alone as a secretary to the cabinet in most part. Announcing the new laws to the other stages of the government. Now

serves as helping the government making sure his needs are fulfilled and that the Government is run properly.
Central agencies
Treasury Board: supervises government spending. A major advisor but well below the PMO and PCO. Must get the approuval of the treasury board for spending.
Finance: Department of government but also a central agency because you need the approuval of the treasury board to spend it how you want it after having the funds approuved by the minister of Finance. The minister of
Finance can frustrate the PM because when he builds up the budget he does consult the PM but mainly does it on its own with budget that does not always pleasure the PM. Finance is a very strong department also considered a central agency.
Justice department: Justice department became a central agency with its chart of human rights because justice may always step into a legislature that will be passed and bring in their notes regarding the rights of the people or things involved in the legislation.
We have Cabinet government only in name. Individual ministers and the PM largely take decisions. Cabinet as a whole does not make decisions.
However the principle of bounding collectivity makes you agree to a legislation that will be passed even if you do not agree. If you do not agree you are forced to resign. Do we have a prime ministerial government or collective government? So we are not collective but we are not prime ministerial government either. We are in the middle in the fact that PM does not lead by itself but does not consult the entire cabinet either.
Sources of the PM power:
He or she is the boss. When Pierre trudeau got elected Jean Chrétien was a cabinet minister at this time. As Pierre got elected he is not Pierre anymore, he is the Boss or the PM. Master of Cabinet. He appoints people to cabinet and to which department they will be minister for, he may dismiss them at anytime. He can transfer you from a department to another. May also

demote you to a junior position. He chairs cabinet. He controls the agenda of cabinet, decides who will speak, who will be on committees. Soul sources of advice to the GG.
To call our government parliamentary government is misstated. The PM controls cabinet so this makes our government tend on the monocratic side instead of collective. People love their time in Cabinet because its their most relaxing time of all time. The PM may abolish a department. The PM is the central person playing with the media. Most important person in responding the country in international affairs. The PM goes to G8, G20, etc. He is the chief person even if there is a minister. PM is the face of Canada in dealing with the Provinces. It’s the PM who decides who is going to be the main ambassador. The PM decides your post-parliamentary career. Also heads the court of appeals. All the major appointment comes from him. He does consult but the decision remains his. Prime ministerial prerogative. The PM in an effect kinds of ignore is own political party.
The leader of the party as well as the party itself has the most influence on voters.
The cabinet’s job description depends on the PM that is in seat.
External events can be the most significant constraint on the PM. (economic, medical, natural disaster, war, etc..)
The media as well are a constraint.
Provincial Premiers are a constraint as well.
In terms of check and balances, the constraint that are in place right now are not enough. In a fact that they do not represent checks like they should. The PM has too much power.
Legislature-Federalism-Courts

In federalism, parliament is characterized by concentrated power, the federal system represents divided power. Divided loyalties. The nature of federalism is that it is a divided community.
What is federalism?
Unitary government: One level of Authority
Centralised Federaism: Two levels of authority; central government dominates
Peripheralised Federalism: Two levels of authority; Regional government dominates
Confederation: One level of authority; Alliance of coequal states.
Classical federalism: Constitution divides up power between the federal government and the provinces which are separate and in a Wheir type of diagram since they are separate but equal in size.
Why did Canada adopt a federal system in 1867?
Because there were continual conflicts between lets say protestant and
Christian, etc. English protestants and French catholics. Conflicts between
1850 and 1864. Quebec fell under minority and would not want rep by pop anymore. We were very concerned about what would happen after the
American civil war because they could have taken up our territory. So by bounding together, we would not be ceased by the Americans. The maritimes did not want us to go into a unitary government. French
Canadians were also very concerned because they wanted a government where they could exercise a certain power regarding their rights. Nothing like what MacDonald wanted to bring up. However, conflicts between
Quebec and Ontario and the future invasion of the Amreicans made the alliance clear in 1967. MacDonalad wanted a highly centralized government.
Fathers of the confederation were discussing that the states in the USA had too much power. (Section 91-Section 92) The feds had the major power to tax, to sell, (trade and commerce) (military) (money) (criminal laws) whereas the provincial powers were (property and civil law) (health care) etc..
Federal ======Section 91

Provincial =====Section 92-10C allows the federal government to reach into provincial jurisdiction and take an area of interest and put it under federal jurisdiction.
Section 93:==== Conflicts between protestants and catholics, 93 says if you have denomination schools at the time of confederation, you cannot abolish them and need to protect them. If you try to abolish them federal government would step in.
POG: Peace order and Government
The judges become th empire of the federal government. The thing is that the federal government gets to pick the judges so this brings up some questioning. Laws however where going oversea to get the approval of the
Empire. Then the british government would make the decision instead of the GG if she decided not to sign it right away. The federal government cannot abolish a province. In the provincial government you may abolish municipalities and cities or merge them but the federal government does not have that power towards the provinces. So weir’s sight of view is that we were quasi-federal system.
Agriculture and Immigration is a subject that appears in both Provincial and
Federal’s jurisdiction. If there is an issue between the two levels of government, the federal government would win over the provincial.
What was the nature of the Canadian federal system in 1867?
How, and why, did the Canadian federal system change between 1867 and
1982?
Changes for partisan reasons. Some father of the confederation resign from the federal government and became supporter of provincial rights. They argued when the federal government was using its power of disallowance that this was wrong and they wanted more power to be sent to the provinces. Power of disallowance diminished as the provincial powers became bigger and bigger. Political shift because the provinces starting

fighting back. John a McDonald was the PM for at the beginning. Just as the provinces were asking for the federal government to back off, the liberal used that line to say that their government were going to give that to the provinces if they defeated the conservative McDonald government. The government started to change their role in the society. With industrialization and urbanization. Provinces glorified municipalities.
 Feds appoint the federal court, the supreme court. privy Council were the dominant force in changing the government from the one we know from 1867 to 1982. Known as the wicked stepfathers of the confederation and they spent a lot of time with the provinces to distribute the power. Move to classical federalism.
Top – POGG which led at the beginning became a attribute as the constitution changed to favor the Provinces.
However, in WW1 and WW2 we moved back to centralized federal government as the federal was mainly leading those periods. How will you fund everything then. They started having a personal income tax and a corporate income tax.
Higly centralized at first to create a national economy and a Canadian nation coast to coast. At the early 1900’s those objectives were met and now immigration and other topics were the main issues. 1900-1920’s the fedral government did not really have a arching set of objectives and federal government was kind of passive. Which at the same time brought the provinces to be more active. Urbanization, healthcare, education were provincial jurisdiction. The courts have consigned the federal government and taken out their overlooking power and gave them an emergency power which gave federal POGG that they could only use in crisis situation from now on and human RIGHTS and provincials rights were given more power.
1930 is depression. It hits the world. Canada did not think it was a federal problem. In the 1935 election, Mackenzie king is reelected with a majority government. Provinces agree in 1940 to allow the federal government to have jurisdiction over unemployment insurance in a constitutional amendment. The point is how it went from strict divisions between the federal and provincial to some agreement upon some Cooperative federalism

in 1945. After WW2, it reflect the rise of King’s time as PM. Then comes the fiscal and monetary policies which suggest to spend when the economy is in a down time and back off when everything is going well. 1867—Agriculture and immigration. Unemployment is given to the Federal government 1951-
1964 constitutional amendment for unemployment and pensions. Using fiscal, monetary policy to manage the economy.
1949 end appeals to the judicial committee of the privy council. In a division of power you need to have an empire. Provinces were concerned that the federal government would appoint his own empire that would make decision in their favor. Before it was either fed or provincial but after 1949, both level of government may have to deal with some issues that go under both jurisdiction after that time. As long as there is not a conflict in the laws. This aspect doctrine says that both can act on some issues that affect both level of government. So inter relations become important. Feds may give money to research money or bursaries or Canada pension plan to provinces even if it should go under the provincial government. Hospitals are provincial jurisdiction however the federal government has the power to spend and bride. They may say if you respect these rules, we will give you
30 cents for every dollar you invest in that field of interest. Power of the feds to use the money for what they want.
Regional development grants: send a lot of money to example northern
Ontario to develop industry there. It does not say anything in the constitution about regional development or equalization but federal government use their power to have more and more power over things that they were not given any power over at first.
1- Courts gave power to the provinces in the early 1920’s when federal government were not doing much
Federal-Provincial diplomacy. Because of this sharing of some power with provinces. It has now become a huge negotiation process between the provinces and the feds. You get the executive of both level of government to be the main actors (bureaucrats… public servant) but usually done from ministers to ministers. First ministers’ meeting. Federal government becomes cocky because they have most of the power.

Provinces have been forces to kind of follow the federal government even if they have their different jurisdictions because the federal government has the money !!
Constitution evolved by the course speaks about side powers that are shared between provinces and federal. Intergovernmental relations become important. It reinforces the power of the prime minister again. Because things are now important to both level of government like health or old pension. The federal system gets involved more and in a sense uses the prime minister’s powers again over the provinces. The PM becomes the main representative of Canada in that manner as well. So the Premiers of every province become a check on the PM.
Parilament has decrease has a check on the government. When you engage in intergovernmental negociations, the the PM may come to the house and tell them that the PM has agreed with a deal with a province and then the member of the house again feel like they do not have power.
Topic 9: The Courts
There has been a restructuration of power in Canada in 1982 when the charter was adopted has Canada’s rule reference. There are many examples of this view of things in the powerpoint. Some that say it changed a lot of things others that it did not change much. The courts have long been an arena for political battle and the chart enhance that probability.
One power of government appoints the courts. Argument that the charter would have a centralization effect. Courts have often made major public policy decisions. JCPC and the courts have had significant impact from 1867 and 1949. After 1949 they changed the structure from watertight department to cooperative agreements. They also lobbied the government lots.

Courts have always been a political actor. Courts have also been where interest groups persuaded their interests. When it was hard for them to do it through the regular process, they would turn to the courts.
We had rights before and we had rights violation as well. Another one is that aboriginal did not have the right to vote until they gave out their Indian status. 1960’s bill of rights. It was not entrenched in the constitution. The second aspect of the bill of right was only relevant to federal laws and was not applicable to provincial governments. That led Pierre Trudeau to describe this 1960 bill of right as a useless scratch piece of paper.
Afterwards it is entrenched in the constitution and applicable to the provinces. Between 1960 and 1962 it was more symbolic than effective.
Courts did not really approve it which is why they did not really ruled in its favor.
The courts describe themselves as the supreme court. Constitution is the supreme law of Canada.
Section 24 is very significant in the charter of rights. Enforcement clause.
They have power in the fact that they can ask for the laws to be changed.
Varient was fired because he was gay, applied to the courts but after several cases that had been building up, the court said they did not accept discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
We as Canadian have been spectator into the development of Canada. Only at election time do we make ourselves useful. Otherwise, a minority of people are active in politics. Citizens get involved in taking pride in saying it was our Constitution.
Section 2; fundamental RIGHTS:
-freedom of associations
-freedom of assembly
-freedom of religion
Mobility rights:
Citizen have the right to remain or leave Canada. Live in any provinces. If the rate of unemployment in that province is below the Canadian

unemployment rate then they may promote to ask people to come work in their province. This is a collective right. Rights are not absolute and most of the charter’s rights are collective rights.
Section 1 and 52.
Section 15: Equality rights
-individual are equal and no discrimination
-Every individual equal protection, sex, age, gender, etc.. Trudeau rejected to include sexual orientation in it back in the days.
Section 16 to 22 : Official language rights
-Canadians would have the same rights if they were French or English speaking across Canada.
Section 23: Minority language rights
-Citizen of Canada
Section 25: Aboriginal rights
Again those are not rights of individuals, they are rights of collective community.
Section 27: Another Collective right exercised by an individual
A charter of rights and freedom is a mixture of individual and collective rights.
Discretion of the police has been reduced by the charter. Charter is a mix of individual and collective rights and they are not absolute. They are qualified.
Section 1 : All of the rights of the chart may be circumcised. The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an individual's Charter rights.

Section 33 : It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause (or "la clause dérogatoire" in French), or as the override power, and it allows
Parliament or provincial legislatures to override certain portions of the
Charter . Applies to section 2 and 7 to 15. It only is in effect for 5 yrs.
There has been some examples given by the teacher about cases where the reasonable limits clause did not work. The long term effect is that it underlined the legitimacy of the tool. In 2004, Martin’s government had said in his campaign that it would erase section 33 from the charter and that would have been a bad move since it would take way the explanation that rights are not absolute.
Section 1-33-6-15 There are individual and collective rights and rights are not absolute! Important !
Issues in governing.
-Impact on Federal System:
Thought it would lead to centralized federalism because the chart would lead to national standard imposed on the government. Governments feared it because they thought it would become federal laws more than anything else.
Quebec representative were very concerned about Section 23: Section
Twenty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Charter that constitutionally guarantees minority language educational rights to French -speaking communities outside Quebec , and, to a lesser extent, English -speaking minorities in Quebec which talks about language rights. Canadian and the education system had some important regulations. Not many Canadians move into Quebec. Debate about French wanting to get and English education.(It was denied as the main objective is to allow French moving to other provinces to be able to be thought in their own language and same thing for English coming into Quebec.)
The principle of federalism means that the application of the charter in fields of provincial jurisdiction
-Impact on elected authorities:

The democratic elected authorities were very concerned about the impact of the implementation of the charter. It limited the power of the police. Since now they always have to think about the charter in every move they make thinking is that going against the charter. It was definitely a big change.
The judges are now a big check on the police. Power of politicians have been lowered by the judges. If politicians would touch that matter it would help but they do not want to get involved in cases like these.
MegaConstitutional Politics
Megaconstitutional politics goes beyond disputing the merits of specific constitutional proposals and addresses the very nature of the political community on which the constitution is based…..
Because of the fundamental nature of the issues in dispute- their tendency to touch citizen’s sense of identity and self worth megaconstitutional politics.
If Quebec get’s a special treatment then the rest of the provinces get it as well.
1988 referendum and 1995 referendum were very emotional.
Conditions for the emergence of megaconstitutional policy:
Grants to the universities, grants to the hospitals, grants to the highways.
Instead of giving power, we have the two level of governments working together on some specific jurisdiction. However, some provinces do not want that help from the federal government. The feel like the federal government is controlling some of their powers and they don’t like it especially the have not provinces. Then you get bureaucratics. Then there were a lot of conflicts and tensions because eof those bureaucratic implementing the rules on the provinces for the provinces to get the programs.
Quiet revolution in quebec is an important stage as well. They wanted provincial autonomy. Union Nationale was denying any federal program.
They did not want feds to get into provincial jurisdiction. Quebec was behind the other provinces in terms of provincial infrastructure du to their

deny of the federal help. They say Quebec was flourishing in the 1960.
(Cegep, Hydro, Education department,..) The English speaking ran the
Provinces. So it is not since yesterday that there are a lot of English in
Quebec. Eaton was called Eatons and they had the s dropped but everyone pretty much spoke English in there. Debates, orders of the day an most of the discussion were in English in the House in Ottawa. 1960, you have a quebec government that does not want to keep doing his provincial duties, they want more. Canada was since 1867 in a Canadian Building goal and now you had Provinces like quebec who wanted to build on their own. They want those powers transferred to Quebec. They do it for themselves and then if other provinces want it then so be it. The significance of unemployment insurance represents the first change in constitutional power.
Pensions after that is a shared jurisdiction. Constitutionnally, it is very stable as there as been only 3 changes in the division of power in 100 yrs.
1927-1961, we are searching for an amending formula. Provinces get very nervous in 1949 because the JCPC is no more the final court of appeal. And now they fear the new supreme court which judges are appointed by the federal government to rule in the feds favor.
Balfour Report 1926.
Statute of Westminster 1931.
Fulton-Favreau 1964.
One of the significance of megaconstitutional is the emergence of us as significant players. It’s the people’s constitution. No change in the section
91 or 92 without all the provinces opinion. No change in the English and
French legislation unless all provinces agree. Unanimous consent was needed. 7/50 rule. Other amendments could be changed under that rule.
You get conflicts in between the liberal government about how far should we go. In Lesage’s government. Quebec does not hink they can grow like they wish under the confederation and they start talking about sovereignty.
Bombs in mailbox. 1968, A major conference is held in Ontario. The feds
(trudeau) did not want to get into quebec’s demands. Pierre trudean and
Johnson go head to head for a while. This incident also elevated Trudeau which let to him being elected as liberal party leader. Then came with the bill of rights to protect everyone.

Victoria charter 1971: Negociated in 1971, there will be some provision for a charter of rights, language and demographic rights, role for provincial appointements in the supreme court judges appointement. Quebec would be garanteed 3 judges. We would get amending formula. Unaminity was not recquired anymore but any provinces with 25% or more of the population would have a veto on any constitutional amendment.(Quebec,
Ontario) This brings equality of provinces from the other ones because they feel this is not fair. Two provinces from western and two provinces from eastern. However, Quebec gets little in change of distribution of powers as
Quebec demands many powers to be transferred to the province. It wants more powers in terms of family, youth. Trudeau, however gets the spending power which becomes explicitly recognized as the federal government’s power.
Then Bourassa, kind of accepts the Federal government’s moves and when
Bourassa comes back to Quebec, there is a significant backlash coming from the Quebekers. Medias, professors, important business people are against
Bourassa’s softness and so Bourassa resolves. Then Trudeau says enough of megaconstitutional amendment has he does not feel like Quebec will ever be happy. 1973, members of opec decides it cuts back on oil saling to the western provinces. Alberta also gets very concerned. Newfoundland wants control over its offshore resources as well. So did BC. Saskatchewan and
Alberta, where the feds intervene on the side of private American organizations to restrict the capacity of the provinces to tax the private corporations. So the provinces get pissed off. After 1972, Trudeau has aggressed the provinces and from 1972 to 1974, Trudeau is in a minority government and this could be talked as the liberal turndown. Before,
Quebec was leading the megaconstitutional but then it has Alberta, BC,
Maritimes, etc.. everybody is angry with Trudeau. Problem in 1976, the election of a PQ government that is dedicated to separate Quebec from
Canada. Under Rene Levesque. Now it is impossible for Trudeau to ignore the constitutional issue. Levesque promises a referendum before the end of his mendate. Trudeau comes back with a proposal that would allow a charter of rights, provincial say in supreme court appointments, a new senate(feds appint ½ and provinces appoint ½). However, no switch in the

distribution of powers. Trudeau is willing to change Cnadian constitution but will not give more powers to the provinces. And Levesque feels like it does not appeal to their nationalist ideas. Trudeau was in a way anti-federalist just like Rene Levesque. Both wanted people to choose, to take side.
Provinces want pretty much all power except for example currency,
Passeport, defence, etc. You are about to see Provinces premiers being well against federal govt’s proposals. The supreme court rules that the federal government cannot change the caracter and purpose of the senate making in unconstitutional.
1980, they get the referendum. Rene Levesque thinking it was a great time to get the referendum going since Trudeau just resigned from Liberal leader duty and the party at this time is without a leader. Plus, Joe clark which is in office does not do the job and gets vote of non confidence from the house so has to resign. So they ask Trudeau to come back and he does. The result is 60% no and 40% yes to the referendum. Trudeau has already said that he would not negotiate about the separatist. He talks about renewing the constitution. Instead, he wanted to renew the federal government in a way that the federal government would relate to the population. Trudeau has been consistent all the time about that idea. So the referendum is defeated and so Trudeau call the premiers in and offers them bill of rights, supreme court appointment and a new senate. Provinces not being open minded, Trudeau goes to the Queen. Provinces did not approve trudeau’s idea because they thought it was week and would become too easy for the feds to pass their legislations. In the 1980’s, we as citizens take ownership of the constitution. Trudeau turns the thing around the Provinces, as
Trudeau sends a great campaing about him and his government representing the people against the provinces who wants all the power.
The emergence of the greatest myth in Canadian history, The night of the long knives. They have a constitutinal meeting in Ottawa. The seating is in terms of entry into confederation. Quebec and Ontario up close. Trudeau told asks all the premiers what they want. Trudeau had just outsnuckered them. He played better pocker than rene levesque. The all the provinces decided they would accept the charter with certain conditions. (7 provinces

reprensenting 50% of the population, equality of the provinces, no more veto) Trudeau does not like it but accepts it. And so he has 9 provinces. 1
-Bill of rights
-Role for provinces in SC appts
-Amending formula
-QC denied greater power.
Leacok 26 Wednesday 7 th
For the first number of years of the megaconstitutional politics, the issue was power and not seperation. The emphasis is on recreating federal institutions. In 1967. PanCanadian attitude, pan Canadian rights.
He wants French canadiens to feel like Canada is their own and fr them to live wherever they want in
Canada and feel like home and be able to be tought in French. He reformed the senate and the supreme court so that they have a larger impact on the provinces but it does not clearly gives power to the provinces. He is talking about reforming the constitution. Reforming federalism. Quebec nationalism tries to strive at the federalism changes to make changes for quebec. Megaconstitutional politics became very emotional. In 1970, the October crisis, is an exemple of that when cabinet minister is kidnapped and trudeau enables the war measure’s act. He rounds up 1200 seperatists in jail. The seperatist were given free passage to Cuba. The support for the war act by trudeau was strong in Quebec by the ones who were not seperatist. It all represents the emotional period we were getting into where the very nature of our political community getting involved. It was not simply about constitutional details but about the entire political community.
1981 conference: supreme court told trudeau that they need substantial provincial conscent. Before the conference it is 8 against 2 (Ontario and …) for. Trudeau is going to ask the people if they want the chsrter or not and he knows the population will most likely vote for a charter that respects rights and everything but the premiers think it will take too much power away from the provinces again. Levesque is for that referendum because he thinks it will be good for quebec but the 7 others don’t think so.
Before in the Victoria act , Quebec and Ontario had a vito on constitutional laws. But later after, they renonce to their veto by joining the 8 provinces going against the trudeau charter. Trudeau was not going to weel in favor of recognizing the distinct society or decentralize the government. So Trudeau and levesque was a far deal.
The 7 provinces ask for a not withstanding clause(section 33) and the federal government would have to approve the Vancouver formula which meant there was no regional veto (which Levesque signed thinking it would not matter). so the next day, there are 9 provinces for and 1 provinces against(Quebec).

Unanimity is now required to change the nature of the supreme court.
Unanimity would be recquired to separate from the Queen.
The rest comes from the Vancouver agreement. 7 provinces representing 50% of the population needs to agree.
If a power was transferred to the Federal government and the provinces wanted to keep it they could. However, if they decided this, they would have no compensation. If they spend money in that program throughout Canada then the provinces who wanted to keep it in their powers they would not receive anything.
When PEI wanted the bridge, they had to sign a constitutional right.
Charter of rights and freedom (1982) after the signing of the provinces in 1981.
Amending formula (section 5)
After the charter, Canadians start to think it is their charter. Since Quebec did not sign the Constitution, they do not get a lot from the Federal Government. Many important political scientist believe that this was not a good deal for Canada to isolate Quebec like that. However, after relooking at it Canada thinks it was a great deal because the seperatist government from Quebec would have never collaborated to the view of the rest of Canada.
When Malrony was in power, he asked to bring back Quebec into the constitution with honor and enthousiasm.
Meanwhile, in Quebec Bourassa removes Levesque and the PQ. he asks these to join the constitution
1-Recongnized as distinct society
2-veto for quebec over constitutional change affecting quebec
3-Role in appointing supreme court judges
4-would be able to opt out in government spendings
5-increased power over immigration.
They pretty much already had this but they wanted in the constitution. Malroney’s idea was to win a lot of quebec seats. Malroney’s government goes to the other provinces and tells them he wants quebec back into the constitution and says it’s the Quebec rounds. He wants them to back off for now and once Quebec is back in he would take care of the other provinces. So in meech Lake in 1987 they do get an agreement. However, it is different from the demands of Malroney’s. All provinces get what Quebec will get. Constitutions are made for bad times to protect the citizens, provinces, and federal government in those hard times.
Supreme court says that Quebecs law to ban English is not constitutional. Bourassa says if he had the powers he wanted he could win at the supreme court with the fact that Quebec would be a distinct society and could go against section 33 or 1. In 1990 there was another meech lake that failed again because Whales (aboriginal representative did not want.)
Section 1 is very powerful.

Megaconstitutional Politics brought up the fact that the citizens wanted part in the constitution. They said it was their constitution. Public polls show that the public was against meech lake but the thing is that they did not really have their word to say. It was an automatic voting chamber.
Consequences that came out of meech lake is that the population got pissed off and realized that they did not really have anything to say in those legislation decisions. It then resulted to the Chalettown accord. Malroney realized that and so he went across Canada to explain to the people what de constitution was. The major components of the Chalottetown accord were;
-Canada Clause : Desire for recognition. Recognition became a core issue not only for Quebec but also for other provinces. This need for recognition becomes contagious. However, can a constitution satisfy the need for recognition. Fundamental Canadian values. Canada clause is an interpretative clause. However, when quebec wanted distinct society clause, they actually got the answer that it would fall under the section 1 of the charter instead if they had something that went against the charter due to their distinctiness. Are some values more important than other regarding hierarchy:
-Parliamentary reform: Reform party has been created. They are also pressing for this EEE senate (elected,equal,effective). However, we do not get this. We get equal, 2 senators from each territory and some to be determined from the aboriginal territories. They would be elected unless the povinces did not want them elected and quebec did not agree to the elected senators. So provinces can elect them but they can opt out. When senate are elected, they can say they have solve their number one democratic problem since they would get their place from the people. The senate cannot introduce money bills, they only have a 30 day suspensive veto on tax policy. 92-A right for indirect taxation of the natural resources from the
Provinces. If this would have been approved, president of bank of Canada, cbc, etc would have had to be approved by the Senate. However, we do not have this today. The other reforming of the parliament was about seats in the house. Proposal at the time was that quebec would be given 25% of the seats in the HoC. 25% rule. As Quebec’s representation decrease, the federal government will not mean anything to Quebec anymore.

-Division of powers: Federal would get out of forestry,housing, mining, tourism, municipal and urban affairs(where they should not be already).
This would remove the power of disallowance from the constitution. No real shift in the division of power. Nothing that would accept Quebec. Quebec not being a winner in this round. Western provinces more, as well as smaller provinces. 6 senators per province. 6 province representing a majority of the people would have a majority in the senate. The real winners were the aboriginal communities.
-Aboriginal Self Government: The right always existed so this clarifies the fact that they self govern themselves. A third level of government was created and that would give the aboriginal the power to self govern. More than municipal, less than provincial. If no agreement is reached after 5 yrs, the courts would have to resolve it. To decide what goes in the box of aboriginal self government. Some aboriginal communities were represented at the discussion table. Major problems evolve from this as they wonder if the charter apply to them and what not.
As a result of this accord, it is said that there will not be constitutional reform taking place without popular referendum. However the questions were so vague. The Charlottetown accord question was very hard to understand as well. The result was 55% no and 45% yes so everything discussed above did not take place. Any constitutional amendment needs to be put in the people.
Then in 1995, there is another referendum in Quebec. Once again the question is very unclear. The results is 49.4% yes and 50.6% no. Pollers coming to McGill explained that the result could have been 65% no and 35% yess if the question would have been clear. If Quebec would have won that referendum, some English people would have liked to separate from quebec as well. If Canada can be separated why couldn’t Quebec. Peter Russel explains the datas and says that it was far from clear and that most of the no came from French majority compté. Sadly, this referendum did not end the megaconstitutional chapter.

Megaconstitutional started to search for an amending formula. Victoria had a regionnaly based amending formula but it was defeted so now they look for a new one.
Subsequent development:
Plan A: Recognition of Quebec by a parliament resolution
Chrétiens’ plan A had the resolution to lend the federal veto to the regions.
Majority of province ontar,qc, two or more of the eastern provinces and 2 or more of the western charter. He retakes the Victoria charter and have the
HoC and the chamber pass it. It is not entrenched however and can be changed by a majority going against it.
 Quebec is also recognize as a distinct society.
Plan B: Question is Does Quebec have the right to succeed from Canada?
Chrestien sent the question to the supreme Court and they looked over it with many international and federal proffessionnals judges and lawyers.
They came up with the resolution that Quebec did not have the right to succeed under international or federal law.
Which also lead to the clarity act which said that if they had a clear question and a clear majority>55%, then the rest of Canada would negotiate.
Chretien and his new college Stephane Dion came up with that idea. If the majority of the HoC rules that the question is not clear then the federal government will not negotiate. The senate did not have a say in this !! The federal would not recognize any referendum and ignore the quebec law if those two points are not met. Then Quebec passes its version of the clarity act to the province.
However, we should not worry too much about this since polls show independentist does not go over 30% nowadays. A community that has one third of it who do not think like the rest is not a healthy community.
Québécois and Québécoise were recognized as a nation within a united nation Canada. Symbolic thing that has been done to tell Quebec they love them. Coalittion avenir quebec is popular for the future of Quebec and seems to be doing good in the polls.

Basic institutions
What are the relations amongs and in the Institutions.
No political institutions is working as effectively as it should.
What is effective is the sense of checks and balances which defines if an instution is efficient or not.
What are the key institutions, how have they changed,
There is a significant democratic deficit in this country, because some institution have become too powerful, which leads to serious danger.
Conservatives do not want to talk about some things in the HoC that have been talked about in the past. Thing is the past was the past and things have changed so they need to be retalked.
What’s the linking’s
Magaconstitution politics led to the Charter
Who’s constitution is it?
Constitutional culture have changed. It is now the peoples’ constitution and not the government.
Which institutions are not as important as before or better.