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: 

1. Governor General 

2. House of Commons 

3. 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: 

1. Decide when parliament meets

2. When the election is held (minimum: every five years) 

3. Royal consent - signs of on all laws

• Nothing is law in Canada until the Monarch approves 

4. Reads speech from Throne 

5. Meets with dignitaries

6. 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 

1. Appointing Prime Minister 

2. Dismissing Prime Minister 

3. 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: 

1. Legitimation 

• The MPs debate affects laws 

2. Accountability 

• They must scrutinize 

3. Representation 

• They represent the interests of the people 

4. 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: 

1. Constituency Delegate 

• They do what their riding wants 

2. Trustee 

• They do what they want 

3. 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 

• 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 

1. Constitutional amendments 

• Alberta and Sask are some of the most powerful in terms of natural resources 

• Most of the western provinces are like that 

2.  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 

3. 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 

4. 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 

5. 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 

1. Undemocratic because it is largely done in secret

2. No meaningful public or legislator input 

3. No public record kept 

4. 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

1. Thought 

2. Expression 

• The state, by law, cannot make a law or a policy aimed to restrict your beliefs and how you express those beliefs 

3. Peaceful Assembly 

• Gatherings, protests, social movements, etc 

4. 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 

1. 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 

2. The Right to be secure against Unreasonable Search or Seizure 

• You can’t just be arrested without probable cause 

3. 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 

4. The Right to a lawyer and a fair trial 

5. 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 

1. 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 

2. 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 

3. 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 

4. Regional Identities 

5. 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 

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: 

1. Power to appoint a PM

2. Power to Dismiss a PM

3. 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: 

1. Prime Minister Steven Harper (Conservative Party) with a minority government

2. Stephanie Dion (Liberal leader who just failed to win election) 

3. Jack Layton (NDP leader) 

4. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of Bloc Quebecois separatist party) 

5. 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 

1. Resign and make way for an alternate government 

2. 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 

1. 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 

2. A veto on constitutional amendments 

• They wanted every province to have a veto because they want to be able to stop constitutional change 

3. Increased control over immigration to the provinces 

• It is a largely federal area of jurisdiction 

4. 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 

5. 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