Knowt
Untitled Flashcards Set
POLI 101: Government of Canada
January 7th:
Introduction to the Government of Canada
Syllabus day, mainly talking about the syllabus and the topic we’ll be covering
January 9th:
Three Pillars of Canadian Democracy
Three Pillars of Canadian Democracy
Made up of PG, F, and CRJ
All three of these institutions are key pillars of the canadian constitution
The constitution is the document that lists out all the basics mechanics of how a country operates including how power is distributed, laws that people have, etc
Imagine a skyscraper, the constitution is the fondation as it shapes how the building is built and how it looks in strength
And interesting aspect of canadian constitution is that not all of it is written down
They all have individual characteristics that don’t relate to the others, while additionally overlapping to create a relationship between the terms like parliamentary government and the charter of rights and judiciary
Parliamentary Government
Canada has a parliamentary government
We are a democracy, but you don’t have to be a parliamentary system to be a democracy
We have a parliamentary system which is not the same as a congressional system like the US - which changes our politics a lot
We have Westminster parliamentary democracy
It stems from the United Kingdom when it was British North America and not Canada
They just brought their style of government to us
The way our elected representatives in parliament are elected, have rules constrained, etc matters a lot
Ex: parliamentary system government is a less direct way of selecting leaders of our country
It is a indirect form of democracy
None of us in this class, no one in canada, votes for justin trudeau to be prime minister because we don’t have ballots who do it like that (unlike the US)
The prime minister is selected as the leader of the party with the most number of seats in the house of commons
Selected by the house of commons to serve in that role
The ordinary voter does not play a direct role is a very important differentiating factor in Canadian vs US politics
We have preserved space for the crown to be involved in our politics
We are a constitutional democracy
The representative of the crown is the governor general, who is the person who opens or closes the house of commons and the house of representatives acting on the advice of the sitting prime minister
Executive power and legislative power are fused together from the same place
Ex: the police are a form of executive power, or executive bodies
The people who make day to day decisions about how things work in the country
Ex: parliament authorizes spending, the executive is the one who is incharge of getting that money out the door
Military spending, infrastructure, etc
The executive is the prime minister and the cabinet
The executives come from the legislature
Justin is both Prime minister and also a member of Parliament as he is one of the 338 people who were elected to the house of commons in 2021
In other systems of government, it's the opposite
In US politics senator marco rubio is about to be elected to his secondary estate and then because of that he has to resign from the house in order to be able to do that since he was the governor of florida
In the US they are separated
Another feature is that we have government bi confidence
You get to govern provided you have the confidence of the majority of the people in the house of commons
This is very distinct from a congressional system
A prime minister only gets to govern as long as they have the confidence of the house of commons
We must have an election federally every five years (that is the only requirement constitutionally) but we could have more elections if the house claims majority non confidence
We can remove a prime minister by parliamentary body vote (which is coming soon in Canadian politics lol), in which then the parliament will be dissolved by the governor general
You can run for election while you're in prison as there are no artificial restrictions on that in our politics
If a prime minister was to kill someone on Young street, they’d be prosecuted
Not like the US where they are immune from criminal prosecution
Is there a difference in the taxpayers cost for administering an election in Canada vs the United states
By numbers, the cost of an election is in the 300 million dollar range, but the federal budget is 400 million dollar rage per year
We should be willing to spend money for the voice of the canadian people to be heard
A Lot of what we know about how it works in parliamentary government is based on unwritten conventions
The US everything about congress is written down in a very regiment kind of day
A lot of what we know is unwritten and developed over many many years and is just known as the way we do things and not written down in any formal document
Broadly understood by all political actors as how things are done and enforced
These can get played with in opportunistic ways (will be talked about in future lectures)
Is canada more vulnerable to a dictator coming to power because things aren’t written down
There are cheques and balances etc (will be in another lecture)
We have highly disciplined political parties
In opposition to the united states where a maverick is more common, here if you speak out against your party or the prime minister you can be expelled from your party and can lose funding etc
Think of party leaders as tyrants over their own party
They have their MPs in line,
When votes come up, every party will vote in unison as directed by their party leader
Unlike the US where you routinely see party members vote against their party
We have 338 electoral districts across the country, and the members get to Ottawa and they don’t vote based on the interest of their district, but on what the party leader said to vote for
We rarely see them step out, and when they do step out the consequences can be career ending
You can be prime minister without holding a riding / a district
The liberals in their forthcoming campaign for leadership, they might select someone who is not a member of the house of commons
Ex: it’s generally understood if this happens the prime minister must seek a bi election at the earliest opportunity
Would have to convince another liberal MP to drop their seat in order to be able to work
Short term you can be prime minister or premier without a seat, but long term you need it
Federalism
The second pillar of canadian democracy
Federalism is fundamentally a question of how do you distribute government authority in a country
Canada is not a unitarian country, such as France or England
We have two and maybe three constitutional orders of government
Federal, provincial and municipal
Federal and provincial are constitutionally written down, while the municipality is a order of government but not a constitutional recognition
Third constitutional order of government is Indigenous government
We don't randomly assign authority, there are arguments and rationale on why certain ones do what
Central government has authority over certain things provincial governments don't have authority for
War
Immigration
Traditionally federal government
Diplomacy
Our relationship with other countries is exclusively federal
Crime
Criminal code of Canada is set at the federal level and provinces enforce it
Provincial government has authority over certain things federal government doesn't
Education
Constitution prohibits federal government from controlling education
Provincial government controls it
Healthcare
Constitutionally only provincial
How it is delivers, policy adjectives, etc
Municipal governments exist in elections, but they are considered provincial creations
That could change tomorrow, as a government is enabling a lower government to exist
A federal government cannot dissolve a province one day due to constitutional dialogue in 1882 - the city of Vancuver does not have that
A big question in federal countries is which government you want to be the one responsible for the really important stuff
This is a question of centralization vs decentralization
Some countries are centralized
This means that they have the majority of decisions taking place in the central government while the regional governments are in stead enforcing that
Some are decentralized
Such as if most important decisions re taking place at a provincial level
We were designed as a centralized nation and today we are one of the most decentralized nations in the world
A big question is that we have these provinces and they have different levels of resources, identities, political views, etc and federalism can help make sure that those issues can gets settles in a deliberate way, but can also lead to conflict
Ex: Alberta / Saskatchewan, should the oil resources be reserved for Albertans, or Canada
Theres alot of money that comes with it; and these kind of questions gets very tense in the country
Should the people of alberta get all the money
How do you share wealth are resources in the country between these autonomous regions
Charter of Rights and Judiciary
This piece is really essential
The charter is a written document written which lays out the individual rights Canadians have in this country
Implemented in 1982
We saw the violation of citizens rights in various ways before the charter was put in place
Since the introduction of the charter, judges have become very power in canadian politics
They have the power to explicitly overruled law from the legislative body
It is a document which represents the liberal values of our society
There are liberal values which privilege individual liberties and natural unalienable rights
Freedom of expression, security of person, right to privacy
The charter reflects by differentiating the rights we have as opposed to constitutional power
These rights generally speaking can’t be taken away
For these rights to be taken seriously there is a representative, and it can’t be the government who is threatening to take those away
The charter is necessary because governments can often do wild things and they can violate rights
Parliamentary governments are the ones doing the violations
The judiciary is the enforcer or the referee of the charter
Is you believe a government action is violating a right, you can lawsuit against the government and the judges have the power to overrule legislative action
They are independent from the government of the day
It empowers people but we also have judges who we don’t even elect who collectively hold more power than the prime minister
Similarity between Parliamentary Government and Federalism
Electoral reform
Similarity between Parliamentary Government and Charter of Rights and Judiciary
Regulating Prostitution
Similarity between Federalism and Charter of Rights and Judiciary
Internal trade
Similarity with All Three
Voting rights for criminals
Three Core Political Dynamics
Core political dynamics are key issues which keep popping up over and over again
Three things which pop up alot in our politics and are not to do with the structures; they are just political dynamics which bring our politics to light
Regionalism
One of the most important dynamics in canadian politics
Is a very powerful force in canadian politics, with regionalism reflected in our political institutions
Dictates how our politicians behave
Ex: regionalism is such a sensitive feature that we have an unwritten convention that when you've just been selected as prime minister and have to select a cabinet you have to have a cabinet minister from every region in our country
Not written down but all hell would break loose if there wasn't because there is such sensitivity in our country that if there is no minister from Alberta their interests would be ignored
No expectation like that in the States
The supreme court has nine seats, and is not randomly distributed, but set out by region
Is embedded in the rules of how power is exercised
Economic regionalism, identity based regionalism (quebec or maritimes vs the west coast vs the prairies)
If we didn't have a regional dynamic, most issues would be easier
Plural Identities
Plural identities
Canada is a very diverse country and a key dynamic compared to other countries is how we manage and fail to manage that diversity
How do we manage it?
Treat everyone equally or do some identities have special promission?
Ex: quuebeqoius people have always been treated differently on an institutional people and in the law
The worry is that they are surrounded by anglophones and they are an island of unique language and french identity which can go away
There are no special rights, but special things in place to preserve the french language and culture in the province
Ex: indigenous people have different rights and provisions than regular canadians due to their identity
There is no expectation in the law in Canada of having one canadian identity
This generates both a welcoming identity for soem and piss off others due to the perception of the issue
Competing Liberalisms
This talks about the political culture of canada
Canada is a liberal country, not like the Liberal party, but like liberalism
Generally believed up values and believes are classified as liberal
Individual rights, liberty, freedom, are core values
All the main political parties are liberal
The conservative party is still a believer in liberal values
Where they all disagree is how they propose to address issues in the country
They all agree on the importance of various fundamental values and liberties but they disagree on how to go about practicing these
Liberals tend to have quite a bit of faith in the free market but believe that there are market failures
The NDP have no faith in the virtues of the free market and imagine a world where the government democratically allocate the resources to help people
Conservatives have a lot complete faith in the free market and believe most issues can sort themselves out, but will help when necessary
Issues in Canadian Politics
January 14th:
Basics of Parliamentary Government
Basics of Parliamentary Government
Parliament includes:
Governor General
House of Commons
Senate
The Canadian parliament operates on the basis of several conventions
A convention in which the way something is usually done, especially within a particular area or activity
They are the unwritten rules on how government works - the parliamentary norms
This includes those who govern at the appointment of the Prime minister, and the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne (like the governor general)
Constitutional Conventions:
Unwritten rules:
Constitutional conventions are unwritten rules that fill in the gaps of the written constitution
Not enforced by the courts:
Constitutional conventions are not enforced by the courts because they are not laws
Enforced by voters: voters enforce conventions at the ballot box
Conventions that govern events after general elections:
Appointment of the Prime Minister:
Conventions govern the Governor General’s possible appointment of a New Prime minister
Address in Reply to the speech from the Throne
Conventions govern the votes on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne
Other conventions:
House practices and conventions:
The House of Commons procedures are based on house practices and conventions
Speakers’ ruling:
The House of Commons procedures are based on speaker’s rulings
Standing Orders of the House of Commons:
The House of Commons procedures are based on the Standing Orders of the House of Commons
The Executive Branch
It is made up of:
The Priminister and Cabinet
The head of government
The Queen (now king)
Represented by the Governor General
Head of State
They are responsible for carrying out the laws passed by the legislative branch
The Legislative Branch:
The Senate and the House of Commons
Governor General Basics
The Representative of Canad’as Head of state, whom he appoints
They are appointed every five years by the Prime Minister
Formally vested with significant power in the Canadian constitution
Their duties:
Decide when parliament meets
When the election is held (minimum: every five years)
Royal consent - signs of on all laws
Nothing is law in Canada until the Monarch approves
Reads speech from Throne
Meets with dignitaries
Performs ceremonial duties on behalf of the Prime Minister
They are a-political
They don’t identify with any party
Governor General Related Concepts
Under responsible government the formal head of state must always acct under the advice of ministers who are members of the elected House of Commons, and who enjoy the confidence of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons
Thy have some remaining discretion to act as she wishes (re: reserve powers), but typically only in unique circumstances and not written down in the Constitution
Appointing Prime Minister
Dismissing Prime Minister
Power to prorogue / dissolve Parliament and call for an election
House of Commons Basics
There are 338 MPs in the House of Commons
The seats are allocated as a representation by population
The 4 functions of the House of Commons are:
Legitimation
The MPs debate affects laws
Accountability
They must scrutinize
Representation
They represent the interests of the people
Ombudsperson
They assist Canadians in dealing with the federal government
This is a official appointed to investigate individuals’ complaints against maladministration, especially that of public authorities
The Main opposition party is called His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition
The Prime Minister and the Cabinet are derived from the House of Commons, and they become the ‘Government’
The 3 Theories of Representation:
Constituency Delegate
They do what their riding wants
Trustee
They do what they want
Party Delegate
They do what their party wants
House of Commons Issues
Party Discipline
Why so strong n canada
Majority vs. Minority governments
Prime Minister and Cabinet Basics
The prime minister and cabinet are acting on executive authority and have essentially inherited the power of the crown
Although they have democratic constraints
You can only wield this power if you have the ongoing confidence of the house of commons
Cabinet is the one who exercises executive power
It's the prime minister and cabinet who decided who our ambassadors are, etc
Basically ust appointing people to roles
The cabinet controls budgeting, decision-making, etc
The cabinet is selected
Be in the party that has the most seats in the house
You are very unlikely to be appointed to cabinet if you aren't part of that party
Most cabinets are about 25-30 people
The leadership of various ministries and sectors
Connections, promises to constituents, loyalty to the party (demonstrative years of following), loyalty in proximity to the PM, bilingualism, regional considerations
Regional considerations are top of mind to the prime minister
We need a cabinet minister from every province
Gender is increasingly important
Ethnic identity is important
Loyalty, regionalism, and gender is the most important
The prime minister is referred to the ‘first among equals’
The prime minister exercises an extraordinary amount of power these days across canada, so he is not referred to that anymore
Why does he have this amount of power?
Because he appointed them, he can also fire them in the cabinet,
so the threat of losing your job could compel a cabinet minister to go along with the PM in order to stay on his good side
The affirmation reason that they occupy the focus of our attention in our politics
Justin brough the Liberals from first place to a majority government
It's almost a presidentialization of our politics because the leader has a lot of informal power over the caucus because he or she got them there
Media landscape has changed since historical elections
We have a more direct connection to the leaders of the parties and how they campaign in elections
Prime Minister and Cabinet Related Concepts
Collective ministerial responsibility:
This is cabinet solidarity and connected to the concept of a responsible government
They get to govern as long as they have the confidence of the parliament
The conduct of the government is the cabinet and their conduct is collectively held responsible by the house of commons
In order to serve in cabinet, you must never contradict government policy
You can't say ‘i disagree with the budget we just passed’
If you can't publicly defend the actions of cabinet, you must resign
Responsible government is all about holding government to account
Such as the ex finance minister, who was unwilling to defend the cabinet and so she resigned
You govern together and you fall together
Individual ministerial responsibility
Minister of foreign affairs in Harper Government has a lot of knowledge ad papers related to our foreign affairs and he left a briefcase in his girlfriend's apartment and she was connected to the hells angel
He had to go, and that is individual responsibility
You make a mistake like that, you have to go
The cabinet making decisions are responsible to government
Cabinet confidentiality
There is an understanding that you cannot tell anyone outside of cabinet what happens in there
Practically no note taking either unless those pages are going to the public
There are big implications and decisions being made and you want a guaranteed that those issues remain private
If you knew your enemy in the cabinet would leak everything you said, you would behave differently in that setting
Can be used by the media or opposition parties because what happens in cabinet is cabinet affairs
We have a right to know what happens inside cabinet such as with the decision they make, not the squabbling that leads up to the outcome which is shared
Senate Basics
The third element of parliament
105 senators, by appointment through Prime Minister
Totally different building and office
Not elected, appointed by PM
You have to be at least 30 years old and own some property
There are restrictions because the senate was designed to represent the higher class
Each region gets 24 senators: West, ON, QC, East + Add ons
‘Equal representation’
Each territory gets one and NFL gets 6 because they came into the confederation later
They have the same functions as the house of commons
Why do we have a Senate?
Same reason as UK
We want democratic representatives, but were worried about what you do there
We want an equal house filled of people of people who are responsible and are a different composition for the house of commons ‘rich people’
They were worried about the thoughts and plans in the house of commons so they made sure those plans went through the senate in order to make sure the plans pleased both houses
Our senate is also a institution for federalism
The three maritime provinces have the same number of seats as ontario
This is a much more big number than the house of commons
It gives a much more massive chance to have their voices heard in government
Chamber of sober second thought
They're supposed to be more sober in the way they deliberate things
Senate Related Issues
There is a legitimacy deficit from being appointed and in control of party in power
The people who control the senate also control the house of commons
Some have been trying to reform the Senate for literally over a century
All major proposed changes have failed
The senate will either suggest some things to change and the house will ignore it and they will pass it anyways
Amending formula in the senate
To reform the senate, you have to change the Canadian constitution
To change the senate you have to have every province to agree to it
We have had some minor changes
Patronage
You come to power as prime minister, you pick who you want ‘a gift’
Compromises the senate's legitimacy
These people are still kind of favorable to the liberal party
January 16th:
Basics of Federalism in Canada
Basics of Federalism in Canada
Division of authority in the country between central and regional government such that neither is subordinate to the other
Provincial governments are not subordinate to the federal government
They have individual authority
It is a source for both the best features of Canadian democracy and governance, as well as the worst features
Why Do We Have Federalism?
We had to be a federation of the country to exist
It was in vert explicit term a ‘requirement’ for the colonies to not become a single country if federalism was not part of the equation
Confederation could have never happened if federalism wasn't part of it
It’s carving out autonomy fo these small regions to make decision for themselves
The supreme court weighed in to federalism in canada when it came to Quebec trying to separate from Canada and gave the quote on the slides
We have federalism because we are a highly regionalised country and we would not function well without federal institutions
The UK knew they wanted to unite the colonies into British north America
The states are a federal country and the canadian founders were inspired by the Americans on the federalism model, but took very important lessons from them on their form of the federalist model
How Did They Decide Which Powers Should Go To Each Level of Government?
The americans designed their federation to be very decentralized
More power should be given to the state governments in the US and less to the federal government
In 1867 we were thinking about federation up here, and down in the states the states were having a civil war because the states had too much power
The Canadians saw this and decided that the federal government would have more power than the provinces
Small things like language, culture, and ways of life were given to the provinces
Central Government Powers | Provincial Government Powers | Concurrent Powers |
|
|
|
This list is written down in the constitution
Generally we haven't messed around with this list since confederation
They're not equal, they’re autonomous from each other
The federal government just has more things its in control of that are more significant than the provinces
Canada was designed to be a centralized federation in 1867
Today canada is widely considered to be one of the most decentralized federations in the world
The states kinda switched with us where America is now a highly centralized federation
The only thing that was explicitly changed in the constitution was that we clarified that the provinces owned their natural resources
Key Reasons for decentralization trends
Constitutional amendments
Alberta and Sask are some of the most powerful in terms of natural resources
Most of the western provinces are like that
Judicial interpretation of the constitution
Judges and ultimately the supreme court
To be safe, anything not written in the constitution goes to the central (federal) government
Peace order and good government clause:
For the preservation of peace, the federal government gets all residual powers
It is limited to national emergencies
This is the closest thing to the supremacy clause in the United States
The courts interpreted this very literally and did not take in the intention of the clause
The JCPC was in england at the time and they didn't have the vibe of Canada and didn’t appreciate the specific context of how things were here at the time
Finances and Taxation
The federation was designed to keep provinces as insignificant entities by controlling taxation
province s had at the time (1867), the worst kind of taxation possible
This was tariffs and customs taxes
How governments made most of their money
We don't pay the direct tariff, the federal government had the ability to render indirect taxes
The only thing provinces were allowed to do were to tax sales or income
Now the way we make most of the money were direct taxes instead of indirect taxes
What was originally meant to limit provinces is now the thing that makes them so powerful
Federal controls went out of use
There were clauses in the constitution that were not meant to be used with any regularity
The powers of disallowance and reservation
It allowed the governor general to render and law passed by a province as null
The power of reservation is the governor general can instruct his counterpart to not sign anything passed through the provinces
Meant for extreme situations
They havent been used for a very long time because the federal government was to disallow provincial laws, then the provinces would be upset
In concert with other developments provinces become more legitimate in people's lives, and so the federal government is less legitimate in vetoing stuff
We don’t know if these powers don’t exist because they havent been used for so long that if the federal government woke up and used it tomorrow it might not be available to them
We don’t really know the constitutional status of this
Evolution of Society
We threw the control of hospitals into provincial care because it wasn’t a massive thing back in 1867 - same with education
The point is that society has changed and what is important now in society is in provincial authority
This has empowered provincial governments in the federation and our lives
Up until five years ago, the world was moving towards free trade, where the authority of the national government to put tariffs on stuff
The central government has not sat on its hands, but plays a important role in policy areas like resource development, education, and healthcare
This is through making policy and legislation and funding to the provinces which is given by the federal government
Just because the constitution divides up authority it does not prohibit cooperation on these issues it just has to be on the terms of the provinces
This is called spending power:
The federal government has power not because of the constitution but because they have money
Some call it a fiscal imbalance
Brings in too much money for that they have control of, thus they have power over the provinces
Executive Federalism:
The process of intergovernmental negotiation through the Prime Minister and Premiers
Developed in order to manage these issues of cash transfers in exchange for certain policy objectives favoured by ottawa
Premier, prime minister jointly debating with each other how they will distribute the power and jointly deliver a public service
How the power is distributed
Our senate is delegitimize, and does not perform the function of other senates
In a modern era, the executive is how power is discussed with the provinces and the prime minister
This is preferred by both the prime minister and th premier
Criticized
Undemocratic because it is largely done in secret
No meaningful public or legislator input
No public record kept
Executives privately talking about this - out of public view
Responsible Government and Federalism:
The tension is on ensuring that elected decision naked are held accountable
What About Conflicts In Federalism?
Sorted through negotiation, and if that fails, through the courts
A lot of federalism conflict is about who has jurisdiction
Examples of negotiated settlements
The pipeline from alberta to BC, it was a bgi fight between British Columbia and Alberta
BC tried to stop Alberta’s desire to put the pipeline on BC’s land
The dispute was enforced by the court order, not the provinces sitting down and talking to each other
January 21st:
Basics of Charter and Judiciary
Basics of Charter and Judiciary
The charter is just the document
One of the three pillars of Canadian Democracy, it is incredibly important thing to understand about Canadian politics
It’s introduction in 1982 profoundly affected Canadian politics
The most recent addition to the Canadian constitution
The bulk of the Canadian Constitution was decided on in 1867
This represents the update to the canadian constitution
Like a new sheet of paper added
The Charter of Rights is the constitutionalization of civil liberties in Canada
The civil liberties that individuals enjoy that are beyond the reach or encroachment of the state
The rights and freedoms we have
One of the reasons why the Charter specifically
Its introduction in 1982 PROFOUNDLY changed Canadian politics
The Charter is what we call a ‘liberal’ document, it lays out our ‘liberal’ rights
Not to be confused with the Liberal Party of Canada
The conservatives today dn in the past are strong supporters of the Charter
It has broad base appeal across the country
We just call them ‘liberal rights’ because that's the intellectual foundation of focusing on the individual and the freedom and rights of the individual
Why do we have a Charter defining our rights and freedoms?
We used to have the British North America Act, otherwise known as the BNA Act
That has various provisions in our constitution
Ex: the division of power between provincial and federal governments
We inherited the idea of ‘Parliamentary Supremacy’ from the UK
Although in some ways parliamentary supremacy is a good thing, it’s democratic in some very obvious ways, it comes with risks
It means that the parliament is supreme to the other forms of government, and that they themselves get to decide what the law is.
They decide their own interpretation of the law
What parliament says is the rule for laws and policies in this country, and they are the final word on it
There is no other overarching body that is more supreme than parliament
Parliament can just make laws, and by virtue those are laws
Parliament is a majoritarian institution
They try to enforce the will of the majority in order to pass stuff
They individually and collectively try to appeal to the broadest amount of people in elections
They are always looking at the public opinion of issues and aid in majority views
This could be a problem because sometimes the majority view may be unjust or not take into consideration the minorities interests
When you have a System in which parliament reigns supreme, you have the potential for minority rights to get trampled over
Pre charter in Canada and around the world this happened much more often than most realise
A lot of civil liberties protection in this country came in after the Second World War
This was due to the human rights violations in the second world war and they wanted to make sure that it wouldn’t happen again
Also the internment of Japanese Canadians was highly supported by the Canadian public at the time
Now the Canadian public looks upon this in horror
The Canadian government, backed by the Canadian people at the time, put them into internment camps as they declared the Japanese enemies in world war 2, even though a Japanese Canadian first had loyalty to Canada.
MASSIVE violation of people's rights
This caused Canada, and many countries around the world to reflect upon the kind of civil liberties protections that the country had at the time
Before 1982 we operated under the principle of parliamentary supremacy, and the Charter represents the introduction of constitutionalized civil liberties beyond the encroachment of the state.
The charter is what we call a ‘liberal’ document, it is laying out ‘liberal’ rights
Fundamental freedoms:
Found in Section 2 of the Charter
It includes: thought, expression, peaceful assembly, and association
These are very common in other liberal countries
Any other countries we consider ourselves comparable to, are also liberal countries with these kind of rights
Thought
Expression
The state, by law, cannot make a law or a policy aimed to restrict your beliefs and how you express those beliefs
Peaceful Assembly
Gatherings, protests, social movements, etc
Association
Forming any kind of group you like
Unions, forming interest or lobby groups
You can freely associate with other people in Canada without the state saying ‘oh group xyz can't exist’
Democratic Rights
Found in Section 3-5 of the Charter
Prior to the charter, in the constitution there was not a rule that we had elections every 5 years, it depended on the good will of the parliament at the time
Within the charter now we have the democratic right to an election every five years
It also specifics who has the right to vote
We do have certain restrictions on democratic rights which still persist
You can't vote until you’re 18, even though in the Charter it says every Canadian citizen has the right to vote
This has been challenged and how the charter was interpreted
Everyone has the right to run for the election
There is no certain type of person who is forbidden to run for office
It would be unconstitutional of them to make a restriction saying people with blue eyes are not allowed to run for office
Legal Rights:
Found in Sections 7-14 of the Charter
The classic legal rights that most liberal democracies have
The Right to Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person
People often claim this one is being violated when a piece of legislation that they believe is threatening this
This does not relate to abortion rights or anything like that
The right as interpreted here is protected individuals from government actions which threaten their life
Liberty is getting a this idea that the government cannot unduly restrain you
The Right to be secure against Unreasonable Search or Seizure
You can’t just be arrested without probable cause
The Right to not be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned
You can't just get swooped up by the police off the street like in some countries
You’re not read your rights, the charges against you are not specified, etc
The Right to a lawyer and a fair trial
The Right to not be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment
Where these rights get operationalized or have any real meaning and why the state chooses to not do these things because part of the charter says if one of these legal rights is violated, the evidence collected from that can be rendered inadmissible in your trial
Equality Rights
Power of Courts under the Charter
Judicial Independence
Balancing Judicial Power against Parliamentary Democracy
Section 33, the “Over-Ride” Clause
An Example of Section 33
Section 1: “The Reasonable Limits” Clause
How it Works
Reference Cases
January 23rd:
3 Core Political Dynamics
Regionalism
Regionalism is perhaps the most important dynamic in canadian politics
Has been since confederation
Regionalism has several dimensions and is not concisely defined in the way some concepts can be defined
They are regional differences
Economic Regionalism
There are regions of canada with distinct economic attributes and as a result varying levels of wealth
You can anticipate that this differences between political economies and economic basis can produce different levels of health between the governments
Identity Regionalism
Areas of canada have distinct political cultures or identities that are understood as ways of doing things
The culture may be different, the disposition of the people may be different, their history, their place in canada
This could be along ethnic lines, religious lines, ideological lines
Causes of Regionalism
Expansive Geography
We ar a large country so we have diverse landscapes and resources and on a practical level we are very far apart from each other
The average british columbia nd the average newfoundlander interact incredibly infrequently, while by contrast you hear about how the relations between British Columbians and places in Cascadia like seattle or Portland have much closer relations due to the broader culture that spans across the border within the Pacific NorthWest
Likewise the people in the Maritimes most likely interact more and have much more in common with people from the NorthEastern United States (New England) than somewhere like BC
All of this is especially true when you talk about the north, many canadians have no connection to the northwest territories
Large distances and infrequent interaction can contribute to feelings in respective parts of the country which people in other regions may not understand
Population Distribution
We have 10 provinces and 3 territories, and the population is NOT even
The bulk of the Canadian population in in Ontario and Quebec
Ontario has 40% of the population, Quebec has almost 25%
We have representation by population in the House of Commons, and these disparities really affects the allocation of seats in the house of commons
If you want to win an election in Canada you would be very smart to pay attention to Quebec and Ontario, cause that's where the bulk of the voters are
If the electoral incentive exists to make you pay attention to a specific province in order to gain power in this country, it will start to urk and bother the populations in the other regions
Most canadian prime ministers have come from either ontario or quebec due to the strong incentives to focus on the two procines
This is what is referred to as the ‘Central Canadian Bias’ in the house of commons
This can breed feelings of resentment or alienation within the rest of Canada
Economic Disparities
The regions in canada have very different economic foundations
Maritimes (fishing industry) prairies (agricultural and recently oil), british columbia (mining and forestry), north (mining), ontario and quebec (manufacturing)
The economic pushes and pulls in the country are quite different in parts of the country
Some regional economies generate more wealth and employment than others
All provinces other than Ontario and Quebec and largely natural resource economies , which is something the provinces control
But natural resources also have a national interest
We have a number of controversies where central canadian politicians make decisions on policies which can affect the natural resource economies of other regions
There are economic disparities in canada on a regional basis
Were not talking like the difference between a ‘first world country vs a developing country’ but one which is reflected through employment rates
Regional Identities
Federalism
Plural Identities
Indigenous Nations
The Royal Proclamation of 1763
Treaties in Canada
Indian Act of 1876
Residential Schools
French Canadians (Quebecois)
Visible Minorites
Competing Liberalisms
Political Ideologies
Social Democracy
Welfare State Liberalism
Buisness Liberalism (neoliberalism)
Neo-conservatism
Left | Centre | Right |
NDP | Liberal Party | Conservative Party |
Social democracy and welfare state liberalism | Welfare state liberalism and business liberalism (neoliberalism) | Business Liberalism and some welfare state liberalism and neo-conservatism |
Political Parties
Brokerage Parties
Ideological Parties
January 28th:
The Prorogation Crisis
Three Pillars of Canadian Democracy:
Going to focus in on Parliamentary government
The core political dynamic are competing liberalisms
How the political parties have natural and unnatural alliances
Under responsible government the formal head of state must always act under the advice of ministers who are members of the elected House of Commons
Under the conventions of rg, the Governor General follows the advice of the Prime MInister and Cabinet and does not play an active role in the system of government
There are ‘reserve powers’ for exceptional circumstances
Reserve Powers:
These reserve powers from the governor general include:
Power to appoint a PM
Power to Dismiss a PM
Power to pause and dissolve a Parliament
No votes or debates occur when the parliament is paused, and they resume after the paused is lifted
By dissolving parliament all votes are gon e
Note on Prorogation:
It is an old word to simply mean postponing a parliament without dissolving it
A routine way to adjourn Parliament for a period without dissolving it
Formally ends he legislative agenda for the year, suspends MP’s parliamentary responsibilities, allowing them to remain in constituencies
Tells everyone “we’ll come back next year”
But Prime Ministers and Premiers have been known to use this for other purposes from time to time
The Coup That Never Happened:
Date: Fall of 2008
Place: Parliament Hill, Ottawa
Players:
Prime Minister Steven Harper (Conservative Party) with a minority government
Stephanie Dion (Liberal leader who just failed to win election)
Jack Layton (NDP leader)
Gilles Duceppe (Leader of Bloc Quebecois separatist party)
Governor General Michealle Jean
Steven Harper was prime minister from 2006 - 2015
His conservative minority government was challenging because the natural alliances based on the composition of our parties leave the liberals, NDP, and green parties are much more closely aligned
They did most government legislative choices were done on a vote by vote basis
Context:
Election just occurred in October 2008 and returned with another minority parliament with conservatives with most seats
Steven Harper conveyed his ‘victory’ as “I won the election”
In the dispute to follow Harper framed himself as just having won the election while th Liberals lost the election
In reality both are kinda true and kinda not true
The opposition parties together have a majority government
Global financial crisis unfolding fand the Harper government maining things were fine and instead chose to introduce some very controversial bills
Subprime mortgage prices in the US caused stock prices to plummet and it looked like we were heading towards a second great depression, with countries beginning to stockpile the same as during COVID
Harper downplayed the meltdown off as ‘not a big deal’
Put up a bill to reduce the right to strike in Canada and didn’t like Union rights
Steven was calling their Bluff, as he believed, if this crisis is so serious, then lets
The opposition saw him as trying to seize the crisis to pass some controversial bill
A Motion of Non-Confidence:
The opposition called his bluff and introduced the motion
Liberal leader introduced a motion of non confidence in the government in the House of Commons and declared that there was a viable alternative to the governing conservatives
They used their opposition day to propose it to the house of commons
Suggested they had a viable governing alternative
If this happened, Harper looses the vote of cofnfidence and he has to either
Resign and make way for an alternate government
Ask the GOvernor General for a dissolution for another election
What was this Viable alternative?
The Coalition:
Liberals opened negotiations with the NDP and the BQ over forming a coalition to pass Dion’s non confidence motion and replace the conservatives with a new government
We had not had a coalition government since world war 1, it is incredibly uncommon
A coalition government is different from minority government
It means all the minority parties have a agreement to govern as well
The cabinet are going to have the NDP and the BQ
You have actual NDP members sitting at the cabinet table making decisions what would leave the party just as responsible and important as the others
Harper was outraged and claimed this was a undemocratic ‘coup’
Said that the losers of the last election had gathered together to try and engineer a victory for themselves after the fact
Said his party ‘won’ the election and claims the opposition parties could have won the election by persuading the canadian people, but they did something shady instead
Constitutionally speaking, Harper was wrong
The only standard that matter constitutionally is who can command the confidence of the house of commons
Doesn't matter the distribution of public opinion or votes, just whether or not the governing party has the confidence of the house of commons
He is not an idiot, he knows he was constitutionally wrong but his insight was that many canadians don't understand responsible government and better or worse have certain feelings and impressions about certain outcomes of elections
Under the conventions of responsible government, it’s not the votes who directly choose the government, it’s the house of commons
The Conservatives launched a media campaign claiming the coalition proposal was undemocratic and a power grab
Tried to convince Canadians to believe that the coalition was undemocratic
Hoped it would apply pressure to the governor general to reject the advances of the coalition party
The coalition parties also launched a media campaign claiming that a coalition was the only way to make Parliament work, since the parties are more closely aligned on policy than the conservatives
They fought that the coalition was a perfectly legitimate way to express the views of the Canadian people
The coalition was prepared to pas a vote on no confidence on December 8th 2008
Harper found a way to avoid allowing this vote to happen at the House of commons by using an unusual parliamentary procedure known as prorogations but needed this to be granted by the Governor General
The prorogation of Parliament was not intended to be used to avoid losing confidence votes in the House of Commons
It would have been highly unusual for a propagation to occur sin
Parliamentary Crisis of December 2008:
Set off a intense debate among the public and constitutional scholars about what is the right choice for the GG to make this circumstance
Was debated among constitutional scholars and the public
These were constituted arguments and political arguments ; they are not the same thing
Constitutional argument wa telling one thing while the public political opinion was telling another
The Coalition wrote a letter to the GG telling them what was happening to try to convey the GG that they were a more stable government than the Harper govwenmnt as we are more ideologically aligned and collectively disagree with Harper on most things
For the GG to make sure there was a stable government, he should have listened the coalition
Problem for Dion is that the GG does not take advice from the Opposition, only the Prime Minister
What the Experts Said: Pro-Dion
There were analysts and scholars arguing that the GG had every right to exercise her reserve power and refuse Harper’s request for a prorgation
They argued that eh GG shoud not enable the PM to escape accountability in the House of Commons and basically collude in a abuse of power
Parliament was shouting that they wanted to vote down Harpers government and they has a democratic mandate to show the canadian people
By saying yes to harper you are colluding (to the GG)
What the Experts said: Pro Harper
Some scholars and analysts didn't bother with the constitutional argument
They said hey they could form a coalition but it is not democratically legitimate
Because the Liberals and the NDP are usually tied together and the Liberal’s voting strategy is trying to convince the NDP voters to vote LIberal
The liberals were asked multiple times if they would form a coalition with the NDPs and they said no
They said this was democratically illegitimate because they ‘lied’ to the canadian people before coming together after the election
Also the Coalition would only stay in office with the support of the BQ, a party dedicated to the break-up of the country
The BQ has never been part of the coalition in Canada, specifically a formal one
It is a controversial idea among Anglophone Canadians, because a party devoted to the separation of canada would hold the balance of power in the deferral government
What Ultimately Happened:
After all this, the GG without comment grants to prorogation request
He has not duty to explain her logic but we have discovered that she did not think that it was an obvious granting
She sent Harper away for two hours to show that she was thinking about it
Agreed on two conditions
Parliament comes back after 6 week s
At the return of parliament you must have a confidence vote that occurs
This was because she wanted to see if the coalition would be stable enough to exist after the 6 weeks
When the parliament came back, the coalition had been dissolved
The liberals were not happy with Dion for how they dealt with it, and appointed a new leader who was not happy with the coalition
When the parliament came back, the Liberals propped up Harper’s government
Prorogation by Trudeau on Jan 6th 2025:
BQ and Conservatives and NDP all pulled the plug on the liberal government and Justin trudeau is facing a situation
They did not propose a coalition due to the differences in ideologies between parties
Justin Trudeau knowing this went to the GG and asked for a prorogation which was granted
There is a debate in the canadian public, with the media saying that this is not how the prorogation should be used
Motivation was different, as this is not a government facing immediate replacement like with the coalition
The governing party needs to find a new party leader and needs time to find a leader without the instability a sitting parliament may present
More debates about whether or not the GG should be stamping every request from the Prime Minister
Recent UK law on prorogation has (maybe) shifted things:
A UK court in 2019 ruled that a RM prorogation request to the Queen was unlawful
This was during the debates around Brexit, and he got a prorogation from the queen
It was challenged in court, and the challengers won
Up until now, it was assumed that the reserve powers of the crown were not subject to judicial review or challenged in court
What happened in the UK in the court was deemed as unlawful and the parliament immediately resumed
Technically speaking what happens in a UK court has no relation to what happens in Canada
There is a distinct possibility that the new country’s mother new precedent might be used in Canada
Two people in Nova Scotia have challenged Trudeau’s prorogation as unlawful, and a Federal court has taken up the case
The case was viewed as probable enough and severe enough that it was expedited
We should know as soon as late february whether or not they will overturn the political use of the prorogation
January 30th:
Quebec Nationalism
Quebec
One of the most unique features in canadian politics is the Quebec question
Spain has similar dynamics to this due to the Catalan, especially with their claims to autonomy and separation
Francophones in this country are linguistic minorities
We can’t fully understand canadian politics without understanding Quebec and their place
A Fundamental Tension Within Confederation:
There is a fundamental tension, on one hand we wanted to bring together the colonies, and the desire was to bring the colonies into one united country which was a joint desire once the Brits defeated the french for their colony
These colonies, had a desire to retain some autonomy, the highest desire was from Quebec as they were the most distinct
Attention when building this new country went to how do we balance the desire to be a country and have our own way of doing things on a national level while still having the autonomy to allow provinces to do what they want to fit the needs and ideas of their citizen s
Ex: education system and how they want to do stuff or include in the curriculum, etc
Federalism was used to allow them to carve out the space to make their own decisions, and Quebec was a leading advocate in that
Quebec has always been distinct in Canada, but in the Quiet Revolution In the 1960s further politicized it
From confederation to the 60s Quebec was very different than today,
They were economically tangent, population was declining, catholic church controlled healthcare and education, little people speaking french, and had almost a semi feudal system of economy
The QR happened over a span of 10–15 years in Quebec, and it happened without force, and very slowly
Went from the most religious place in all of Canada to the most secular in all of Canada in one generation
It was an awakening of the Quebec identity, the fears of losing the french language became politicized and people became convinced it could only be protected by focusing on Quebec's identity to not be French-Canadians to Quebecois
This made their provincial identity much more prominent to Quebecois
To locate power in the federal government, look at the provinces
By attaching their claims to a province and not as a group of people across the country, they were able to think of themselves as not the minority in canada but the majority in quebec
This allowed them to control institutions in Quebec, where they could better protect the culture and language of french
This basically abandoned french canadians outside of quebec, with the idea of preserving french culture was focused solely on quebec and their provincial institutions
It is a mistake to believe that there is a single quebec identity that would give an answer to the Quebec question, in fact there are 3 answers:
Federalist View on Federalism:
Things were mostly cool
They think about it in the nature of how the federation has been designed
You generally believe that the division of powers in the federation is suitable and fine and there are no major problems with it
Nationalist View on Federalism:
Things are not cool right now
They have problems with the federation and how many powers quebec is given within the federation
They believe that the provinces don't have enough authority and that the federal government is something they should be suspicious of because the federal government is mainly Anglo-Canadians
The answer is to give Quebec more powers
Separatist View on Federalism:
Things will never be cool
They are like more extreme nationalists, and they want them to be their own nation
Things are so bad and english canadians will never understand them enough to make their lives how they want it to be, so they should separate
Distribution of Quebecois ideologies are : 25% FED, 45% NAT, 30% SEP
Quebecois are not anxious to get out of the country, however ¼ and ⅓ of the province are willing to leave the country but it is not as high as the past
The modern Quebec struggle accelerated during Pierre Trudeau’s long role in Canadian political life
Pierre was a enemy of quebec nationalists and separatists
He was a quebecer and was among the 25% who were like “calm down”
He was not in favour of any separatists or nationalist policies
He was a federalist and he favoured a strong centralized federal government
Quebecois wanted strong provincial governments and a weakened federal government
Pierre wanted to play down the claims of uniqueness among Quebecois
To his mind, lots of people in canada spoke other languages and had unique cultural practices and that Quebec was not special
He had a very different vision for the country, especially multiculturalism
Meant he did not favour any culture as a distinct national culture
Quebec wanted their culture to have special authority to make laws so that they could preserve their culture
Summary of the times Quebecois were “slapped in the face” by Federal Canada:
There is a fundamental disagreement in this country on the nature of federalism
In quebec there is a thing that federalism exists on the nation basis, where as the vast majority of the Anglo-phone canadians think about Federalism in terms of a territorial thing and have relatively arbitrary boundaries
Ex: the border between BC and AB is arbitrary and they should not be treated differently
Quebecois think we are a nation based federation and they should treat provinces differently
Examples of Times when QC was “Slapped in the Face” by Canada:
Slap 1: Bilingual but no Binational
We are officially a bilingual country, and this is how this emerged
The prime minister (Pierson) at the time in response to the fear of Quebec and the loss of french language
Royal Commision on Bilingualism and Binationalism (1963)
When the government invites a group of experts to study and give the government suggestions of what to do when the government has an issue that they don’t know how to solve
They want to depoliticize it
Royal commission recommends that canada declares themselves a bilingual and binational country
Would convince quebecers that officially speaking Canada recognizes the importance of quebec as one of the two founding peoples in this country
Pierre Trudeau proceeded with official bilingualism, but rejected recommendation that Canada be constitutionally recognized as binational
Again because he believed in multiculturalism, and by recognizing that Canada was bilingual was basically telling the Quebecois that if they were scared of the french language dying, bow everything in the country is in both languages
He instead adopted a multiculturalism policy as his way of acknowledging QC identity
He was a scholar who believed if a country recognized the status of a central ethnic group of people is dangerous
He believed it was dangerous because it could result in a war by putting them on a pedestal and allowing resentment to build
To most multiculturalism sounds like a very neutral thing, but it also has a way of undermining Quebec nationalism claims
It makes Quebecois seem like very other gorup in this country because Quebec argued that the Quebecois had a very important role in the country and they had a very special role in the formation of canada
Multiculturalism is not subscribed to by the province of Quebec, and it is irritating for many
Slap 2: Constitutional Change Without Support from Quebec
Trudeau wanted to change the Canadian Constitution to add the Charter and formalize the amending formula
Before 1982 we did not have it written down how we would change the constitution and we would still have to appeal any changes to the British parliament and pass a law to make it happen
An amending formula means if you want to change anything in the constitution the federal parliament can't just do it on it’s own because it affects provinces as well
This is because we are a federation and we would need to get approval from them
Prior to 1982 it was understood you would need provincial consent but we didnt have it as a explicit rule
The quebec government didn't really care about whether or not they would put in the Charter, but they wanted some things
They wanted to put more things in column 92 for the provinces, but Trudeau was unwilling to change this because he believed in a central government
Trudeau said no to this, and he went to pass a law to change the constitution
Reference cases had a proposed action of government
He asked the supreme court, and they said no to doing it on his own
He had to get substantial provincial consent (not collective)
Up until this point the provinces were all united with Quebec
Pierre trudeau practically divided and conquered the provinces and made it clear that he would not be changing the division of powers to satisfy quebec
Literally overnight Pierre Trudeau secretly met with the english canadian premiers, and the Quebecois premier did not receive an invitation
They met overnight, and struck a deal, with the other provinces practically abandoning quebec
This is why it is known in quebec as “the night of long knives”
This is a nazi reference to the massacre which allowed for the rise of hitler to power
Quebec felt incredibly betrayed by the other provinces
Children are taught about this in Quebec
In Anglophone canada it is known as the kitchen accord
This is because they were all in a hotel kitchen passing it at night
Slap 3: The Meech Lake Accord (1987 - 1990)
Prime Minister Mulroney asked the Quebec Premier what it would take to endorse the Constitution, and there were 5 demands
Recognize in the Constitution, Quebec as a “distinct society”
A new clause to specify that they were a distinct society
It was important because the nationalists believed if there was a special provision in the constitution it would allow the courts to deem actions in quebec otherside as unconstitutional as alright
A veto on constitutional amendments
They wanted every province to have a veto because they want to be able to stop constitutional change
Increased control over immigration to the provinces
It is a largely federal area of jurisdiction
Role in appointment of supreme justices
The supreme court has 9 justices, 3 from quebec, 3 from ontario, 2 from the west, 2 from the east 1 from the north
Financial compensation for opting out of national programs
They wanted out without punishment
They wanted the equivalent in money to the change
He wanted to try and get Quebec to sign the constitution (which they still haven't), and do the one thing Trudeau hadn’t been able to do
It was about a symbolic endorsement of QUebec where they accept the terms of the constitution and they feel included
The amending formula is that you need seven provinces to agree and they must have over 50% of the constitution
You need either Ontario or Quebec
All the premiers agreed to these terms because what looked like Quebec demands were really provincial demands
Large decentralization
Had to be ratified by each provincial legislature
A SINGLE person in Manitoba refused to vote on this issue
This was because an Indigenous representative refused to sign due to the Indigenous peoples issues being ignored in the country
IT DIDN’T PASS
It’s failure was seen to Quebec as when it really matters the federal government letting then down
Slap 4: Charlottetown Accord (1990-1992)
Essentially the Meech Lake Accord plus some more
Some other things addresses in the Charlottetown Accord:
Reforming the senate because the western provinces didnt like how it was designed
Promised a pathway for indigenous people to be self governing
Canada Clause: recognize quebec as distinct society and other fundamental values of Canada
A social charter guaranteeing rights to health care, social services and education
They did a national vote with the canadian people for it
It was practically completely shut down, with only a few provinces choosing to endorse it
Why are we talking about two failed accords then?
Shows different visions of the nature of the federation
It shows the extreme difficulty of amending the constitution when we have a province with very distinct views
Leads to a 1993 important election where liberals took control
This was where the Bloc Quebecois emerged as the separatist party on a national level
That lead to the 1995 referendum on Quebec sovereignty
Slap 5: The Response to Referendum is Clarity Act
This failure lead to a spike of separatism within quebec
They elected a separatist government in Quebec, who vowed to have a referendum to separate
The 1995 referendum results: 49.4 (Yes) 50.6 (No)
The question was somewhat vague, it was not necessarily clear to everyone voting what they were voting for
Didn't know if they’d be their own country or this super autonomous province with Canada and still have an association with them
The GOC passes Clarity Act:
It says we understand if a province wants to separate they have a right to do that, but they have to do that with a clear question and they will be the judge on whether or not that question is clear
Quebec government says they do not see that law as legitimate and they will not respect or follow it in the future
We have not had another referendum since that, so we don’t know if the canadian government can technically act on the Clarity Act
Post 1995
Quebec’s feelings did not go away after this, although other things have happened
Prime MInsisters after the referendum have engaged with quebec in asymmetrical federalism
Trying to manage Quebecs demands not through formal change but just delegating things with them
EX: Quebec wanted formal constitutional change to control immigration in the province, but they informormaly created things to allow them to have opinion and delegation on federal programs and stuff
This has allowed them to have representation at international institutions, the house of commons has recognized them as a distinct nation between canada (not in constitution), administer federal programs
Asymmetrical federalism means that there is not symmetry in the federation and that Quebec had special privileges while other provinces don’t
The Government of Canada has rejected other demands from Quebec for symmetry in the federation:
There has been no movement to recognize Quebec as a distinct society in the constitution
Quebec wants to administer collection of all taxes in the province
They want to collect all the tax money and give it to the federal government instead of how it is not (the other way around)
A veto over any constitutional change
The right to choose their SCC judges
