Political Science 2210
Canadian Politics and Government
Fall 2003

Class Preparation Readings and Questions
September 2003 (2)

September 30, 2003
Canadian Political Culture

Readings:

Dyck, Chapter 10

Supplementary Readings:

Reading # 19 – Matthew Mendelsohn, “Canada’s Social Contract: Evidence from Public Opinion”, Report to Canadian Policy Research Networks.  For Table references in text, see http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~mattmen/papers/

Questions:

1. Dyck discusses Canadian political culture as a balancing act between tendencies towards individualism and collectivism. How is this balance reflected in citizens’ attitudes to politics and government?

2. What roles do “regional, ethnic and class subcultures” play in Canadian politics?   How are these differences reflected in political loyalties or levels of political participation?

3. Dyck distinguishes between voters as “influencers” (or “participants”) and “disconnected” (or “spectators”) of public affairs.  How do the two groups differ?  What implication to these differences have for policy-makers and the news media?

SLIDES FROM SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 CLASS

Slide # 1
POLITICAL CULTURE – The collection of politically relevant values, attitudes, beliefs and orientations that characterize a political system.

DOMINANT POLITICAL CULTURE – The collection of political values, attitudes and beliefs which establish the terms for political discussion and action, including the capacity to determine which attitudes and beliefs will be marginalized or excluded from the political process.

POLITICAL CULTURE both influences and reflects:

• POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION – the process whereby individuals acquire their political values, attitudes and orientations.

• POLITICAL EFFICACY – the capacity to influence the political process, or the belief that one’s participation in political activity has the capacity to influence the political process.

• SUB-CULTURES – Clusters of people who share basic political values and attitudes based on common regional, ethnic, class or other characteristics.
 
Potential Reflections of / Responses to Political Inefficacy:

• Apathy and superficial conformity
    – people go along to get along, but they have no abiding loyalty to the system

• Performance legitimacy
    – support for the system to the extent that it protects their basic interests
    • expression in politics: “what have you done for me lately?”
    • “balance sheet politics” – what’s in it for me?

• Alienation and non-participation
    – people fundamentally distrust the system, and believe that their interests and values are ignored or de-valued
       within the dominant political system – they drop out of political society

• Alienation and political mobilization or revolt
    -- Groups that feel left out or abandoned by the system find a political voice to express their grievances
        and propose alternatives to the existing political system

 
Slide # 3
CANADA’S TRADITIONAL POLITICAL CULTURE

• Democracy as representative government, NOT popular sovereignty
    • Formal Political equality
    • Political Freedom – reflected in Charter values
    • Freedom of Conscience & Religion
    • Freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
    • Freedom of peaceable assembly
    • Freedom of association.
    • Balance of individualism, collectivism, communitarianism

INDIVIDUALISM – emphasis on individual freedom, opportunity, rights and responsibilities.   May be expressed in both economic and social terms.

COLLECTIVISM – rules and social structures governed by collective decisions of the majority, enforcing its will through the state – with little or no opportunity for individuals to opt out “within the system”.   Characterized by centralized exercise of power.

COMMUNITARIANISM – voluntary cooperation of individuals, either by private choice or with state assistance, based on shared values or the pursuit of shared goals – allows for some degree of diversity.
 
Would you describe yourself as a:
                                             Canada              United States
                                             (July 2000)         (November 2000)

Small L Liberal                      30%                    25%

Neither                                  43%                    31%

Small C Conservative            25%                    42%

[source: Ekos Research Assoc., “Rethinking Government: Presentation to IPAC”, August 30, 2000, 20]

Would you describe yourself as a:
                                                         Public Sector      Private Sector
                                                         Elites (July 99)     Elites

Small L Liberal                                      43%                  8%

Neither                                                  25%                17%

Small C Conservative                            29%                73%

[Frank Graves, “Identify, Globalization and North American Integration”, Jan. 16, 2001 – ekos. com]
 
GROWING CITIZEN DETACHMENT:
VOTER TURNOUT IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS

1984: 75.3%

1988: 75.3%

1993: 69.3%

1997: 67.0%

2000:  61.2%

[Dyck (2000), Table 10:4, 217; www.elections.ca]

Average voter turnout:
                                        Federal       Federal    Provincial
                                        1984-97     2000         1974-98

Canada                               71.8          61.2              na
Newfoundland                     60.7          57.1              77.6
Nova Scotia                        71.1          62.9              74.1
Quebec                               75.5          64.1              80.7
Ontario                               70.9          58.0              63.4
Manitoba                            70.0          62.3              72.3
Saskatchewan                     72.6          62.3  78.8
Alberta   67.0  60.2  57.1
B.C.    72.4  63.0  72.9

Sources: Dyck 2000, Table 10-4, 217; Elections Canada, Report on 2000 General Election, Table IV:7.
 

September 25, 2003
Canada and the United States

Readings:

Reading # 6 –Hale (2003), “The Unfinished Legacy: Liberal Policy towards North America”, 23-43.
Reading # 7 – Gotlieb (2003), “Foremost Partner: The Conduct of Canada-U.S. Relations”, 19-31.
Reading # 8 – Hart (2000), “The Role of Dispute Settlement in Managing Canada-U.S. Trade and Investment Relations” 93-116.

Questions:
 

1. What major factors must Canadian policy-makers balance in managing Canadian policies towards the United States? How do these factors sometimes contribute to “ad hoc” policy making? (Gotlieb)

2. What major institutional, economic, and political factors make it difficult for the federal government to coordinate or manage Canada-U.S. relations … in Canada [Hale], on the U.S. side of the relationship [Gotlieb]?

3. Why do Gotlieb and Hart argue for the creation of a “community of law” in North America?  What are some of the options for doing this -- and for managing cross-border disputes in light of the huge disparities in size and power among North American nations?

SLIDES USED IN CLASS OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2003
BROAD OBJECTIVES OF CANADIAN POLICIES TOWARDS THE UNITED STATES

• Maintain high levels of investment, economic growth
    • key factor in expanding public spending, services.

• Effort to balance ongoing economic integration with United States with expansion of economic relations with other countries

• Maintain efficient access to U.S. markets through border security coordination (especially since Sept. 2001)

• Selective “liberal idealism” in diplomatic, humanitarian and  security aspects of foreign policies
    • Often used in “pursuit of difference” between Canadian, U.S. policies
    • e.g. Kyoto, Cuba, international security issues.

• Maintenance of federal policy flexibility

• Avoid formal “linkages” between policy fields in cross-border relations.

LIMITATIONS ON POLICY COORDINATION

Domestic:
• Size and scope of relationship (> 190 separate agreements)

    • decentralization of decision-making to ministry level
    • allows specialized decision-making, but little coordination

• disparities in size, power between Canada, United States

    • growing diversification of regional economies
    • reinforced by growing North-South trade trends

International
• international organizations highly specialized by policy fields, limiting capacity of national governments for overall policy coordination.

United States
• progressive decentralization of power from Executive to Congress
• few resources given to U.S.-Canada relations in State Department, other agencies.
• decentralization of power within Congress through committee structures
• privileges special interests in making trade, investment policies.
• trade policy seen primarily in context of domestic policies.
 

Rules-based International System

* Reflects effort to balance

NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY – preserving capacity for political choices to promote, accommodate domestic political interests

NATIONAL TREATMENT – equitable treatment of foreign residents (including businesses) on same basis as a country’s own citizens.

Three approaches to “Community of Law”
(growing degrees of integration)

• Mutual Recognition of national laws – application of “national treatment” principle
    • details of laws may vary widely from one country to another, as long as principles of “non-discrimination”
       between nationals, non-nationals apply

• “Inter-operability” – accommodation of national or sub-national (e.g. provincial) differences in specific policy
    fields within negotiated framework of common policy goals or principles.

• Harmonization – development of common legal standards applying across national borders.
 
 

September 23, 2003
Canada in the World

Readings:

Reading # 3 – Stairs, “Transnational Pluralism and the ‘Democratization’ of Canadian Foreign Policy at the Turn of the Millenium”, 161-76

Reading # 4 – Cooper, “Coalitions of the Willing”, 221-47.

Reading # 5 – National Defence: Paying the Piper, Contracted Out, or Symbolic Luxury
a) Travers (2002), “Of arms and men in joint defence”.
b) Granatstein (2002), “Our tradition is strong, but we are militarily weak”.
c) Spector (2002), “Nix the toys for the boys”.

Questions:

1. What is the “fundamental duality” in Canadian foreign policy described by Cooper?  Why does it matter?

2. How has Canadian foreign policy served as both an expression of national interest and national identity?

3. How has globalization changed the relationship between national governments and their citizens in dealing with issues of foreign policy? [Stairs]
 

Slide # 1
TREATIES / INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

• POLITICAL – participation in United Nations, Commonwealth, Organization of American States, La Francophonie, APEC, etc.

• MILITARY
    • Alliances – NATO, NORAD (with U.S.)
    • Treaties – Land Mines, Nuclear Test-Ban
    • Active service …

• ECONOMIC
    • Trade (NAFTA / WTO / Misc. bilateral)
    • Tax (about 105 countries in 1997)
    • Investment (NAFTA)

OTHER:
• Assorted United Nations Agreements
• Extradition Treaties
• Environmental Agreements

Slide # 2
GLOBALIZATION
[Takes political, economic, cultural forms]
• Growing integration of national economies in exchanges of goods, services, capital
• Limits on arbitrary powers of governments to regulate trade, national economies
    • Canada’s exports: 40.9% of GDP (2002)
    • Foreign investment in Canada:
        • $ 349 billion (2002) – about ¼ of share values
    • Canadian direct investment abroad: $ 432 billion
    • Canadian portfolio investment abroad:
        • $ 212 billion (2000) -- about 37% of value of Cdn.-based mutual funds)
    • Net national indebtedness (public + private) has dropped from 44.7% of GDP in 1993 to 18.8% in
      2001 as Canada becomes net capital exporter

CULTURE
• Influence of U.S. TV, movies, pop. music, professional sports, social trends
• Two-way:  cultural exports
    • Emigration – emergence of transnational cultural networks driven by migration, ongoing linkages
    • Immigration – influence of other cultures on Canadian mosaic

Slide # 3
CANADA – U.S. RELATIONS

Political Influence:
• integration of Canadian defense systems with United States (NATO / NORAD)
• accommodation of U.S. strategic interests on major issues (e.g post September 11, 2001)
• U.S. policy towards Canada: benign neglect unless major interests threatened by political or economic developments in Canada.

Economic Influence:
• Canada’s largest export market (86% in 1997-2001)
• economic recovery of 1990s export-driven
• All Canadian provinces exported more to other countries, mainly the U.S., than to one another during this period
• Largest source of foreign direct investment in Canada
• Largest destination of Canadian investment abroad

OPTIONS FOR CANADIAN DEFENCE POLICY

a) Benign neglect [e.g. Spector, “Nix the toys for the boys”]
• Canada lacks effective military capacity, can’t afford to buy one.
• U.S. will defend us anyway
• No external threat to justify diversion of resources from domestic policy priorities

b) Alliance-Based Security
• Canada’s diplomatic influence in international relations depends partly on its capacity to reinforce diplomatic or “soft power” resources with military “hard power resources”
• Restoration of military essential condition to influence U.S. security-related policy priorities, encourage U.S. willingness to cooperate with major allies.
• Rejects “neutralist” or “anti-American” view of global power system in favour of North American alliance, “anglosphere”

c) Neutralist or U.N.-based security policy
* Time to provide U.N. with independent security capacity that goes beyond peacekeeping
* Rejects association with U.S. as essential element of Canadian defence, security priorities.
* Tendency to emphasize “soft power” approaches over “hard power”
 

September 18, 2003
Balancing Competing Claims of Identity

Readings:

Dyck, Chapter 6
Abu-Laban, “The Politics of Race, Ethnicity and Immigration”, in B&G, Chapter 21.
Reading # 2 – Richard Sigurdson, “Canada as a Multi-National Federation: Promises and Problems”

Questions:

1) What implications have competing claims of identity had on Canadian concepts of citizenship?   How has multiculturalism undermined the political basis for Canada as a country of “two founding nations” with “three orders of government”?

2) What alternatives exist to entrenching claims to group equality or identity in the Constitution?    How are these reflected in political efforts to reduce tensions resulting from competing concepts of rights?

SLIDES FROM SEPTEMBER 18, 2003 CLASS

DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO CULTURAL PLURALISM

Assimilation – response to cultural differences is public identification with the cultural values and identity of another community, resulting in either the privatization of cultural differences or the rejection or abandonment of one’s identification with a previous culture or community.

Identity Politics – a major purpose of group political activism or public policy is to emphasize cultural differences and distinctions among groups, often as a means for particular groups to secure increased political or social recognition and status.

Integration – a process by which people with distinct identities and cultural commitments become integral parts of a broader community, combining the capacity to function effectively as full members of society with significant elements of their own cultural identities.