PPAS2110 Group Notes

PPAS 2110 NOTES RULES OF THE DOC: ● PLEASE DO NOT SHARE YOUR ANSWERS FOR ANY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS, QUIZZES, ASSIGNMENTS OR EXAMS ON THIS DOCUMENT ● ADD YOUR NAME TO EACH SECTION OF EDITS SO WE KNOW WHOSE NOTES BELONG TO WHO ● INCLUDE LINKS TO READINGS/LECTURES ● IF THERE ARE ANY MISTAKES, PLEASE POINT THEM OUT!! Chapter 1: Hanan 1.1 Political Regimes ● The principles of the regime should support the political institutions and vice versa. Regime : The form of government and the underlying political principles that provide the legitimate basis for that form of government. Table 1.1 To What Purpose Do the Rulers Rule – Aristotle's Regimes Who Rules? Common Good Own Interest One Kingship/Monarchy Tyranny Few Aristocracy Oligarchy Many Polity/Constitutional Democracy Democracy Kingship : Aristocracy : Oligarchy : Polity: Democracy : A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. ○ Canada’s democratic regime has been crafted to guard against the dangers of tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of the Majority : ● Two of the most important fundamental principles – Equality and Liberty ○ Also constitutes the foundations of a liberal democratic regime. Equality :

Liberty : A sphere of human thought and action that is private and that within that private sphere all individuals have the right to make choices for themselves. 1.2 Equality and Democracy: Direct Versus Indirect Government ● The fundamental principle of democracy is equality. ● Democracy in its pure form grants political power to all citizens equally (excluding children) as democrats believe that no one has any special title to rule. ● There is no formal political privilege granted to those who come from particular families or to people who own particular lands or business in a democratic region. Direct Democracy: Regimes in which all of the citizens were directly involved in political decision-making by way of political assemblies. Representative Democracy: The equal citizens of modern democracies delegate the responsibility for public matters to a small group of elected representatives. ● Emerged for two reasons 1. Modern democracies are simply too large to be governed by the people directly: while the direct democracies of ancient Greece may have had only a few thousand citizens, the democracies of the modern world have millions. 2. Elections are an aristocratic exercise: to attain office, the candidate has to convince the voters that he or she is the best person for the job. The founders of modern democracies believed that the introduction of representation would minimise the tendency to mob rule observed in the direct democracies of ancient Greece. Parliamentary Democracy: Political decisions are made by a representative body called Parliament. ● A variety of Representative Democracy. ● A regime they thought superior to direct democracy precisely because it was a more limited form of democracy. Republican: A regime in which full and final authority is placed in the hands of the people’s elected representatives and officers. ● Founders of the Canadian constitution took heavy influence from the United States, except for their presidential/congressional as opposed to our British parliamentary government. ○ They were concerned with the American-style indirect democracy being still too directly linked to the people and thus subject to the dangers of mob rule. ■ Presidents, governors, and some judges are chosen directly by the people. ○ Canadian confederation preferred indirect democracy: the votes do not directly elect either prime minister or the Minister of the Cabinet. The decision is made by the Members of Parliament when they take their

3. The Rule of Law ■ Citizens must be able to count on “Law and Order.” ■ The government is not itself about the law. ■ The law must be applied equally and impartially. ■ Every action taken by the government must be grounded in some legal authority. Constitutionalism : The idea that a regime itself must be ordered in accordance with agreed-upon rules that will be supreme. 1.4 Consent and Citizenship ● Liberal democracies are based upon the fundamental idea of consent. Consent : We freely consent to be governed by a particular regime and its laws, we are obligated to obey those laws and in return, the regime is obligated to exercise its authority over its citizens in accordance with the laws that constitute the regime. ■ Canadians have consented to establish a liberal democratic regime. ■ Any fundamental alteration of this regime into a different type would require that the Canadian people give their consent to such a change in order for it to be legitimate, either in the way of their elected governments or directly through referendum. ○ Consent can be granted implicitly or explicitly. ○ Implicitly 1. Growing up under laws of Canada, we expect that the government will obey the law and protect our rights in accordance with the law. 2. We have the opportunity to periodically express our consent in elections at all levels of government and hence indirectly over the laws themselves through our elected representatives. Citizenship : A general right to participate in the regime on those who have consented to accept its authority and abide by its rules ● Canada articles that specific rights and duties of citizens in the Citizenship Act. ○ This failed to include the Indigenous peoples when asking consent. ○ Canada is a Settler-Colonial Regime in the eyes of Indigenous Peoples and a Liberal Democratic Regime in the eyes of its own citizens. ○ Indigenous people were denied the rights to vote in the federal elections (1885-1960) ○ The new Dominion Indian Act ensured every aspect of the lives of Indigenous Peoples was subjected to control of the government- appointed Indian agents. ○ Treaties were signed with the crown and typically involved the transfer of land to the crown in return for reserves, hunting privileges and other benefits. ○ It is often argued that indigenous signatories did not share the

colonial understanding of the terms of the treaty and signed under some form of duress. ○ The circumstances diminished the degree of consent indigenous people gave to others occupation of their traditional territories 1.5. The Canadian Regime ● Equality, liberty and consent constitute the regime principles of all the world's liberal democracies. ○ Sweden, Australia, Japan, Germany, Mexico, Israel ● Canada’s constitutional order was originally designed to blend elements from British parliamentary democracy and American federalism. ○ British parliamentary democracy: the Crown, Prime Minister, cabinet, Parliament, the electoral system and political parties. ○ The American foundations of a constitutional order: federalism, the Charter of Rights and the judiciary. Lecture transcript: Jan 12 In a democratic regime it's important that people know something about the government and are educated. Professor argued civic and careers need to advance to help the public engage more. Prepare and educate students to be active citizens within the political regime. Our textbook argues if the populace is not well educated 2 key things would occur: 1- Passive followers: the public is not informed and will follow the leader and the problem with this is the risk of tyranny/concepts of tyranny mob. Those in control if not actively monitored or watched by the electorate will have undo power. The passivity of the uneducated could be problematic. 2- Public has the risk of being unrealistic around what governments can do and what's possible and what government is for and what powers the government holds. Having an informed public is a very critical component of democracy. Voter turnout in 2021 reached a historic low in the elections. malcolsom argues that regime is whole system , the whole is more than the sum of the parts, moving parts shift within the totality

The rule of the law: liberal democracies depend on an order, the governments aren’t above rule of law and powers of government should be grounded in law Consent: Could be explicit and implicit Implicit: if you grew up in Canada have knowledge of rights and practices in Canada and have accepted them - by being a citizen and participating and demonstrating consent through elections. Explicit: through immigraation - citizenship confers a right to participate in the regime and those who consented to accept its authority and abide by its rules (the citizenship act of Canada) The concept of citizenship is expressed through elections Citizens have power to vote or not Did the indigneous people ever consent? Review of history within Canada: intent of the Canadian government was not to worry about the consent of indigenos people; historical context indicates the opposite: colonial mindset, assimilation. Canada created a liberal democracy for its citizens and it has a settler-colonial relationship with indgenous people. From 1885 to 1960 idnigenous people were denied the right to vote. The indian act put idngennous ppl under control of government. Is the act of signing a treaty a form of consent? Many say treaties were signed under duress and without the understanding of the concept of colonialism; and does the accepting of benefits of being part of the regime access to legal system and human rights …etc does that imply consent? They might have not overtly consented but they have been living in Canadian society and reaping benefits of so, and that implies consent, others would wonder if they have been reaping benefits? The truth and reconciliation report has been looking to more of a reconciliation from a nation to nation perspective. Dual citizenship - are you indgneous and canadian?

Textbook is divided into elements of the constitution - those which are similar to the UK and those to the USA. There are historic reasons as to why the Canadian system developed this way. As Canada was a colony of Britain but Canada was attracted to the USA as the British was a united front while America represented a federal/state model. Canada was developing into regions and that impacted the want to move away from a unitary state as a result both elements developed. The Constitution Similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom •Responsible Government •The Crown •Parliament •Elections •Political Parties The Constitution Similar in Principle to that of the US •Federalism •Canadian Charter •Judiciary Case example: Fairy Creek (B.C.): Fairy creek is a logging site and it's an old growth site. Environmentalists say they are fighting Canada’s version of the ivory trade, while the forestry industry says the protesters are endangering the livelihoods of thousands of hardworking families. Background Aug 2020: old growth in trees is 250 years and more and in this area many trees are over thousand years old , not just trees but biodiversity around them the birds, insects the area is around 5o thousand hectares. Teal jones managed to get a license to log in the area and when environmentalists discovered this they set up blockades/protested The company went to court and got an injunction and that led the RCMP to remove protestors from site. There have been 1200 arrests.

accompanied with a bill/charter of rights which outlines freedoms - 4. To provide for an orderly way to make changes to it - e.g. amendment formula - Outlined process which explains how amendments to the constitutions are made because regimes are not static and continuous revision and accommodation of the structure must occur - Provisions for amendments must be outlined and they should not be easily changed because of political danger which may ensue at the hands of an irresponsible politician(s) - “A constitution embodies the regime’s most fundamental rules: the rules that ‘constitute’ it” (20) Constitutional rules come in two forms: - 1. Constitutional conventions: - Rules enforced politically - Enforced and informed by public opinion - Political actors often face consequences if they do not follow the given rules of the conventions of the constitution (check page 20) - “the conventions of responsible government. Constitutional rules may also take the form of laws.” (20) - “Laws are judicially enforceable rules.” (20) - Normally followed - “the core distinction between constitutional convention and constitutional law is that conventions are enforced politically and laws are enforced by the judiciary (i.e., the courts).” (20) - “The best way to understand constitutional convention is to think of it as something like constitutional custom” (20) - Kind of culturally understood, customary understandings like a handshake versus a bow in certain parts of the world - Is both rational and traditional - Judges do not enforce constitutional conventions - “ In a constitutional system based on conventions, it is assumed that the voters will know what those conventions are and will guard them jealously. “ (20) - 2. Constitutional Law: - “ rules of a constitutional nature that are enforced by courts.” (21) - Two subcategories: - Organic statutes (?) - “Statutes establishing constitutional rules” (21) - Does not deal with everyday matters, - Works with Organs of the Regime - Written laws and enforceable by courts - Passed though majority legislative vote - Entrenched constitutional acts - Enforceable by the courts - “Supreme law of the regime” (22) - “The adoption of an entrenched constitutional act almost always requires extraordinary consent – a public referendum” (23) - Are not easily changed

- “changing an entrenched constitutional act typically requires an extraordinary degree of consensus” (23) - Entrenching the constitution ensures citizens rights and liberties Rights of Indigenous peoples - Part 2 of the constitution is this “Indian, Inuit and Metis” rights - Entrenches treaty rights and existing rights - treaty rights: Rights which treaties signed by the Crown or the Canadian government have appointed to Indigenous people - Pre-1975: guarantees the right to exclusive use of certain lands (their “reserves”) and the rights “to regular payments of money (“annuities”), hunting and fishing rights on Crown lands, and the right to federally funded schools.” (30) and in return would “cede” or have their traditional lands taken and given to the crown. - Since 1975, these treaties have turned into “land claim agreements” however are still approached as if they are treaties - “Land claims agreements typically go far beyond the old treaties in that they may recognize a right to participate in the management of lands and resources in traditional territories outside of the reserves, wildlife harvesting rights, and the right to certain types of self- government.” (31) - “Treaty rights are rights created by the treaties themselves. Any entitlement promised to the Indigenous signatories of a treaty becomes a right. (For instance, if a treaty were to include a clause stipulating that the First Nation signatory will be provided with a hospital or a high school located on their territory, then that First Nation has a “treaty right” to that type of facility.)” (31) - Existing rights: - Rights which Indigenous people had before signing any specific treaty - Now referred to their inherent rights - Includes the right to their lands and the right to self-government Constitutional Politics since 1982 - Quebec did not sign CA 1982 and claimed that passing it was unconstitutional because Quebec’s population did not consent to it but Pierre Trudeau countered that Quebec’s people did consent to it because the province’s elected representatives majority voted in favour of the deal

○ Govt remains in office till PM resigns ○ PM must resign if confidence of house is lost 3.6 Institutional Implications ● US vs Canada system ● In US, prez, congress and senate are elected in separate elections ● In Canada, HoC is the only one elected ● In US, cabinet is selected from whole country ● In Canada, cabinet is selected from MPs (usually) ● In US, head of govt and head of state are both the president ● In Canada, head of govt is PM and head of state is the monarch ● In US, there is no party discipline ● In Canada, there needs to be party discipline bc if a party loses confidence of the house, they lose the right to govern, and party discipline is the best way of not having that happen ● If there was no party discipline, elections would be much more frequent 3.7 Responsible Govt & Separation of Powers ● Separation of powers goal: prevent govt from becoming tyrannical (less likely to cooperate for anti-democratic purposes ○ Sometimes leads to inefficiency Chapter 3: Dina Saleh Responsible Government Includes summary for Chapter 3 & 4 LEARNING OUTCOMES: ● Describe Responsible Government, including its conventions and practical implications ● Recognize the fundamental difference(s) between a presidential system and a parliamentary system ● Discern between majority and minority governments and the respective implications for governing

● Parliamentary system requires government being responsive to its citizens ● Cabinet ministers are individually responsible to parliament for the exercise of their powers and are collectively responsible for all decisions in cabinet ● They are responsible for setting and changing domestic foriegn policies, proposing new legislations or changing existing legislation ● Executive branch develops policies and approvals come from legislative branch ● House of commons consist of all members of parliament elected by their jurisdiction - opposite members hold gov and cabinet accountable for their decisions Responsible Government ● In Britain and Canada, a responsible government makes the executive accountable to the House of Commons through the elected representatives ● They need approval of the House to use their power hence there is democratic control of executive power ● Responsible Government today is often referred to as “Cabinet Government” that holds Fusion of Powers: ● Fusion of powers can be defined as “a regime in which legislative and executive power are fused together in a cabinet that is accountable to an assembly of the people’s elected representatives” ● In the past the British monarch held both executive and legislative power (they created laws and approved them and executed them). ● The monarch was unelected and had little accountability- leads to abuse of power. So there was a look to see if you could separate these powers ● Separation of powers would help reduce tyranny ● Different than the American system as there are more distinct lines between the president and the executive vs congress which is made up by the house of reps in the senate ● Another key difference is that the president can choose advisors from anyone, they do not need to come out from the elected reps.

● Total of 338 seats in the house of commons ● 170 seats to have a majority government ● The cabinet backed by a parliamentary majority is nearly guaranteed the confidence of the house, but they still have to work to keep the confidence ● No single party controls the majority of the seats in a minority gov ● Gov in powers have to keep opposition aligned with them or have to divide them and have to choose who to partner is to maintain majority support or will choose legislation that one other party will support ● Or parties in power with a minority Gov will introduce legislation that will hold public support. ● Majority gov are seen as more stable while minority gov are seen as more moderate and have a higher level of accountability Forming a government: ● In responsible government we don’t elect the government directly; we elect our local member of parliament ● The PM, House and Crown form a government based on conventions; ● Ultimate responsibility rests will the Crown, who appoints a Prime Minister ● The PM should have the confidence of the House of Commons – has the support of the majority of elected reps ● Gov’t remains in office until the PM resigns on its behalf or PM must resign if his/her gov’t has lost the confidence of the House and has no prospect of winning the confidence of a newly elected House ● A prime minister can also resign and return to private life or maintain being a political member but no longer prime minister. Previously when prime ministers retired another person from that party was appointed by the governor

general. ● No constitutional basis for thinking the prime minister has to be the leader of the party that has the most seats. Instead they need to be the leader that has the confidence of the house of commons ● For example, parties can form a coalition and the government generatal can choose a leader within it (page 56 has more details) Practical Implications of Responsible Gov’t Responsible Government and Separation of Powers are alternative Principles in forming a Liberal Democratic Regime that result in differences in operations ● Timing of Elections ● Cabinet Appointments - in the USA the president can choose and do more of what he/she wants. In Canada the prime minister can only choose cabinets who are elected. Some of these elected cabinet members are not expertised in these areas and may not be equipped in dealing with this. ● Head of Government and Head of State. In Canada the queen is the head of state and has final power, in the USA president plays both head of state and head of government ● Party Discipline- if members of a party do not stick together the minister may not maintain the confidence in house. Party discipline is high in Canada. In the USA house of representatives vote as they wish and not always on party lines. Political systems: ● Parliamentary system: citizens elect members of parliament through elections. The members select their leader who must maintain the confidence of the House. The Prime Minister may stay in power as long as they hold the majority of the votes in the House of Commons ● Presidential system: citizens elect the leader directly. The leader is constitutionally independent of the legislature ● Colloquially we often say things like “The Trudeau Government” and “The Biden Administration” Chapter 4: Hale ● Queen appoints GG as rep in Canada on advice of govt ● Provides royal assent to legislation ● GG has reserve powers ○ Appoint PM in line with house confidence ○ Dismiss PM without confidence of house ○ Prorogue parliament or dissolve and call elections ● Privy council advises GG ● Includes cabinet, who advise PM ● Collective responsibility of cabinet means cabinet decisions need to be in line w govts priorities ● Reason for cabinet being private; if it came out that ministers were against a policy in

○ Territories have 1 MP each; overrepresented ● Technically: ministers are govt members, everyone else is private member ● Politically: govt party members are govt MP’s, everyone else is opposition MP’s ● Opposition has shadow cabinet to critique govt cabinet ● Parliamentary officers ○ Speaker: MP elected by house to be speaker; must be impartial ○ Clerk: procedural export ○ Sergeant at arms: security of house ○ Recording secretaries: keep hansard ● Other (non partisan) officers ○ Auditor general: reviews govt spending ○ Parliamentary budget officer: independent assessments of financial position, budget estimates, and economic trends; also costs out proposals on request ○ Conflict of interest and ethics officer: deal with conflicts of interest between MP’s roles and their interests as citizens ● Parliamentary business ○ Bills ■ Ministers can introduce spending bills ■ Private members can introduce PMBs that are less often passed ■ 1st reading - letting MPs get to know the bill ■ 2nd reading - debating about intent ■ Committee - reports on specifics of bill (e.g. line by line review) ■ 3rd reading - voting on ctte amendments and passing the bill ○ Resolutions ■ Expresses opinion of house ○ Scrutiny of public expenditure ■ Scrutiny of ministries’ pre-spending estimates in standing ctte ■ Scrutiny of ministries’ post spending reports in ctte of public accounts ● Chaired by opposition member ■ Provision of information ● Written questions from oppo; govt responses via clerk ● Oral questions in Question Period ○ Politically loaded questions ● House is governed by ingrained conventions from british parliament and amendable standing order ○ Usually to facilitate to regulate (e.g. address comments thru speaker) adversarial nature of house ● Backbenchers participate by: ○ Caucus meetings; in camera so members can speak freely ○ Standing committees; clause by clause review of bills ○ PMBs; any bill that doesn’t spend money or introduce tax ● Lots of concern that MPs are too committed to party to rep constits ○ Main reforms could be to give MPs more power in ■ Standing committees ● Could give standing committees more research capacity and increase salary for chairs ■ PMBs ● Could have more time for debate of PMBs

■ Free votes ● Could loosen what qualifies as confidence vote ● Currently, govt bills are which makes parties force voting preferences on their members ● Change to only throne speech, motions of non confidence and budget ● Senate: chamber of sober second thought ● Meant to protect property rights in case majority of poor ppl put an anti-rich bill through HoC ● Meant to represent smaller regions ● Appointed till age 75 by PM (officially GG) ● Can vote against bill supported by HoC but usually don’t ● Some ppl want senate abolished bc of view they don't do anything and waste money ● Some ppl want to restructure to give more representation to smaller regions ● Trudeau made senate less partisan by removing party caucuses Example questions: Canada’s former Prime Minister Joe Clark said “Canada is a ‘community of communities’.” What does he mean by this? Use references to material in our text and lectures to support your response. It does – or does not matter – that the province of Quebec is not a