Pre-Exam Office Hours

I will be in my office in 52 University Ave. (the little Canadian and Indigenous Studies building) all day Wednesday, Dec. 11. 

Storm warning

We're supposed to get a nasty storm Tuesday night. The class will not be cancelled but we'll do the essay session Wednesday and the review class Friday. The essay class is optional. Bring papers (from any course) for critiquing on style.

Assignment 3

This paper is optional. You can do this assignment if you are not happy with your other assignments and want to improve your grade. Otherwise, your grade will be calculated based on the two 750-word assignments, the term paper and the exam. Your mark cannot go down if you do this assignment, but it may not necessarily go up. You can hand this in any time before the end of the term.

Reprinted below is part of a formerly secret letter written by the chief wartime censor, Wilfrid Eggleston, to Thomas Stone, the head of military intelligence, on August 13th, 1941. Stone had just demanded a tougher press censorship. He thought the media -- mostly newspapers but also CBC radio -- were publishing far too many military secrets. This was the low point of the Allies in World War II. Britain had been through the terrible bombing of its cities called "The blitz", the German army was marching on Moscow, and the United States was still neutral. (It would be in the war four months later). Losing the war seemed like a real possibility. In this memo, Eggleston argues that the press needs to be free to report on facts and problems. He says the war effort is helped by a free media.

The questions: Do you think Eggleston makes his point? There is no right or wrong answer. You know my opinion but you are very free to disagree with it. And is Eggleston's argument right or wrong today? Do you think the media is necessary to our system of government? And lastly, does the media do this job well.

You're being asked to write a  500 word opinion piece.  All good opinion is backed by facts. You may want to use the Internet to get facts to back up your argument, and cite chunks of Eggleston's letter (use the citation "W. Eggleston to T.A. Stone, Aug. 13, 1941" in the first reference and "Eggleston to Stone") afterwards.

The assignment is due Dec. 1.

Dear Mr.  Stone;

Since our meeting on Monday I have been giving some thought to a couple of aspects of press censorship which were thrown up in a somewhat challenging way in the course of our discussions As I believe there is a good deal to be gained by frank and thorough examination of our mutual problems, I hope you will bear with me while I comment as briefly as I can on these two angles.

I.          I was much struck by the reference to the instructions to Nazi Intelligence Agents which are believed to have been intercepted, and the remark that practically all the information they were asked to get could be found either in the press of Canada or in Hansard. This may be true, and if it is, it is a highly disturbing thought, although I believe too much should not be made of the apparent implications of it. In this connection I came across what I regard as an illuminating passage in an article on press censorship which appeared in the magazine "Fortune" for June 1941. I quote three paragraphs:

“As may have been gathered by now, censorship is no fourth--grade subject. Stated at its simplest the problem is to keep from the enemy information of value. The first area of confusion centers about what is valuable. Now, all information is of value to the enemy. The population of a country, its government, the location of rivers, cities, ports, its resources, its ethnic and linguistic composition, are all of value to the enemy. These, of course, the enemy already possesses. Plants and facilities can be located from standard reference works. Naval and aircraft registers, army organization manuals, officer rosters, Congressional hearings contain 95 per cent of the material that the military considers secret, confidential, or restricted -- or will when hostilities begin."

………………………..

''Beyond true secrets and army and naval movements and dispositions lies endless disputed territory. Secrets may be deduced from isolated bits of apparently innocent information. (Navy's deductive classic is their cracking the dark secret of Japanese naval guns by checking the export of a special kind of steel from a small middle-western steel plant.) Disclosures of production lags may tip off the enemy to vital weaknesses. But it may also be more important that the people at home should know the weakness than that the enemy should not know. There is in all censorship a strong unconscious tendency to cut off the nose to spite the face. On technical grounds of secrecy the army, say, may show good reason to conceal the failures of a new tank, though such censorship may lead to false optimism with consequent reaction of despair. A German deputy after the last war declared before the Reichstag that military censorship had done more harm -- militarily -- than all the papers in Germany could have if the censorship had been lifted entirely."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"The press in a democracy is still the fourth estate; it is almost a fourth branch of government. It is not, as in Germany or the U.S.S.R., a branch of the government, but a part of our constitutional system. There is the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branch -- and there is the press. It is impossible to imagine governmental processes in the U.S. without a press. Its first function is to inform, its second to criticize. Censorship is a direct threat to both functions and hence a direct threat to effective democracy. Without information there is no basis for criticism and without criticism there is, as the saying goes, tyranny."

Link to Rescuing Policy:The Case for Open Engagement

This link takes you to a free ebook by Don Lenihan, Rescuing Policy: The Case for Open Engagement: http://www.ppforum.ca/rescuing-policy

Outside Influences on Government Policy

People have always tried to influence Parliament because it makes laws and levies taxes.

Canada’s first parliaments were dominated by railway promoters

Churches, too, had a huge influence on politics and still do.

As did industrialists and farmers, who were the country’s biggest block of voters.

Along with groups like the Orange Lodge and their mirror image, the St. Jean Baptiste Society in Quebec.

What could the government do for these people?

Set taxes

Tariffs (taxes on foreign goods)

Give cash and land as subsidies (especially to railways)

Build infrastructure

Buy products and services (especially from construction companies.

The Way Governments Are Influenced

Bribery

Campaign contributions

Mobilizing the voters

Social pressure

Media pressure

World War I speeded up evolution. The small labour movement grew with the Oshawa GM Strike 1937 being a major watershed.

Churches and women’s groups pushed new policies like Prohibition

Governments had to deal with the Great Depression. The Debate:  How to stimulate business and get people back to work?

                  - ban unions?

                  - ban imports?

                  - cut taxes?

                  - more government spending?                 

                

}How  do you help the unemployed?

                       - Relief (welfare)

                       - work camps

                       - education (rare)

                       - Social Credit

                       - do nothing

World War II put worries about the Depression on the back burner. It caused the government to get involved in the economy, and, essentially, take it over.

Gave many more businesses leaders personal connections with decision-makers in Ottawa

Post-War Reaction (1950s)

-Public anger at “five percenters”

-Development of Public Relations

-PR’s use of wartime propaganda and advertising tools

The 1960s: Growth of "progressive" movements like feminism, environmentalism, into mainstream politics and culture.

By the 1970s, Union membership reached its peak while corporations began becoming international

Lobbying

Lobbyists are well-connected people who sell their expertise to business, interest groups, and even foreign governments.

In the 1970s and 1980s, they quickly grew and became a major player in political party fundraising.

They were unregulated

The Free Trade Election (1988)

Centered on the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement.

Anti-Free Trade side included the Liberals, NDP, Council of Canadians, environmentalists, unions.

Pro side was governing Conservatives, Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Business Council on National Issues

Lobbying Rules

Applied to all lobbyists, corporate or “progressive”.

Lobbyists had to register. https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/eic/site/012.nsf/eng/00035.html

Can’t fund-raise for parties.

Accountability Act (2006) cooling-off period.

Governments expect to deal with organizations and corporations. They are ill-equipped to listen to individuals.

Where is democracy in this?

Powerful interests in Ottawa

Oil and pipeline companies

Banks

Free trade advocates like manufacturers’ groups. 

And are the media an interest group or an important part of the political system? 

Formerly Influential Groups

Unions

Environmental groups

Assembly of First Nations

Provincial premiers

Media 

And is Parliament just another “interest group”?

Do lobbyists and interest groups have more influence than they should with out bureaucracy, PMO, Department of Finance, etc .?

And how much influence do our elected representatives have in our system?  

Churches, too, had a huge influence on politicsChurches, too, had a huge influence on politics

Governing from the Centre

Canada is a Westminster-style Parliamentary democracy .

It  has 14 parliaments. And, until the 1960s, premiers of Ontario were called “prime ministers”.

But we also have a strong executive, similar to the Presidential system in the US.

The Prime Minister is the leader of the political party with the most seats in Parliament.

In theory, Parliament is supposed to have control of taxation and spending

Parliament was originally set up to collect taxes and provide advice and support to the King

It is also a court in its own right.

By the time Canada’s parliaments were established, the British parliaments had pried most important powers out of the hands of monarchs.

At the same time, bureaucracy grew in London as the British economy and empire expanded.

But, until 1832, it was a stretch to call Britain a democracy, and British politicians regularly denounced the idea. (There were only about 200,000 qualified voters in all of the UK before the Reform Bill of 1832).

But by 1867, the party system as we know it, and the modern cabinet system, was already functioning in Canada.

Still, the vote was limited to land-owning men and people had to vote publicly, so the “bought stayed bought.”

Even though there were parties, individual MPs had a tremendous amount of power, and did not have to follow the party line.

The party needed MPs more than MPs needed parties. Why?

       We had a small government. At Confederation in 1867, nearly all of the employees of the entire federal government, other  than postal workers, soldiers and border guards, worked in the OLD buildings on Parliament Hill.
And, until 1931, Canada did not have control over its military and foreign affairs.
Campaigns were small and local
Parties didn’t do much advertising or help candidates financially at election time
MPs could vote out their own leader during a parliamentary session. (This still happens in Britain).
Local party members could pick anyone they wanted to be their candidate.
A lot of MPs were so well-known and influential in their ridings that they could be elected as Independents and decide whether to support individual bills.

Reasons for the Expansion of the Federal Government 

• Wars
• Transportation (the nationalization -- government take-over --of the Canadian National Railway, a giant company after World War I)
• The new powers under the Statute of Westminster 1931
• The creation of the CBC in 1935
• Depression welfare efforts and the Bank of Canada
• More war
• And, most important, the creation of the post-war welfare state
• Cabinet – the ministers who “run” departments, grew from a handful to up to 40 members.
• But the Prime Minister’s Office and his powers grew.

The Ways Prime Ministers Control the Levers of Power

Can call an election at any time
Candidates need party leader’s signature to run
Strong leaders forced parties to get rid of the ability of MPs to fire their party leader
They control all kinds of perks and promotion: cabinet seats, parliamentary secretaries, committee chairs, patronage appointments.
The party leaders control the party money and messaging
The Prime Minister has control of spending, and can approve or deny grants, contracts, etc.
The Prime Minister usually controls the grass roots of the party and can effectively end the career of someone who causes trouble.

The Prime Minister's Control of the Bureaucracy 

Deputy ministers are hired and fired by the Prime Minister, not by ministers
His “deputy minister”, the Clerk of the Privy Council, is in charge of the entire public serviceThe Prime Minister has thousands of jobs at his disposal


Checks and Balances on the Prime Minister 

Parliament (increasingly weak)The courts
The Prime Minister’s party (quite weak)
Public opinion
The voters
Parliamentarians
Party fundraisersLobbyists“StrategistsThe Media
Corporations
The media
Members of the law societies and bar
Non-government organizations of all kinds
Foreign governments (via contacts, summits, diplomats)


How an Idea Becomes a Law

Policy ideas come from the party, bureaucracy, non-government organizations, lobbyists, the courts, and the public
A bill is drafted, usually in the Privy Council Office
The bill gets First Reading
Later, the bill gets second reading, approving the idea of the bill
The bill goes to a parliamentary committee where witnesses may be called to testify
The committee sends a report back to the House of Commons, with amendments
The bill is debated one last time, with the committee’s recommendations considered and voted on.
The bill gets third reading (no debate)
The bill is introduced in the Senate and gets the same kind of first and second reading, committee scrutiny, debate at “report” stage, and third reading.
The bill is then given Royal Assent. Is it a law now? 
Nope.
It still needs to be “proclaimed” and published in the Canada Gazette
Often, the bill does not have much affect until the Cabinet passes regulations (drawn up by the bureaucracy).
Now, through the entire process, lobbyists, interest groups, bureaucrats and politicians lobby the Prime Minister’s Office and the senior bureaucracy for the amendments and regulations that they want.

One Solid Nation or a Community of Communities?

Prime Minister Joe Clark:

   “In an immense country, you live on a local scale. Governments make the nations work by recognizing that we are fundamentally a community of communities. Whatever cultures we come from, whatever heritage we bring to these shores, we are all of us North American in aspiration. We want to build. We want to grow. Generally, the goals of Canadians are personal goals. A few people in our history have helped build our nation by consciously pursuing national goals, but many more have built this nation by pursuing the personal  goals which the nature of this nation allows. The personal goal of most Canadians has been freedom and some security for their family. That caused the settlement of new regions, caused the immigration of new citizens, caused the transplanting of old roots to new ground. A policy designed to make the nation grow must build upon and must not frustrate the instinct of most Canadians to build a stake for themselves.”

What is “Federalism”?

—  A system in which government powers are shared by a national government and provincial (or state) administrations.

Examples:

—  The United States

—  Mexico

—  The former Soviet Union

—  Germany

The roles of the different levels of government are defined in constitutions but usually remain in flux. Sometimes the system collapses entirely, as in the American Civil War.

Canada had just three regions when the three provinces of British North America were joined in a Confederation in 1867:

—  The Maritimes

—  The St. Lawrence Valley

—  Southern Ontario

Canada also had “territories”:  The Pacific Coast, which was a separate set of colonies, but what are now Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta were “territories” under federal government control in 1867, as was the arctic.

Prince Edward Island was also a colony with some self-government until 1871. Newfoundland remained a separate country until 1949.

Is Canada – or the US or Germany – a collection of independent countries (states/nations) or one country that allows lower level of governments to exist and exercise power? Is Canada – or the US or Germany – a collection of independent countries (states/nations) or one country that allows lower level of governments to exist and exercise power? That was the question that started the U.S. Civil War and has been argued for generations in Canada, especially regarding Quebec.

Because, if a federation is actually a group of countries joined together, they can be “unjoined”

The trend in the last century is toward federation breakdown:

—  Austria-Hungary (1918)

—  The Turkish empire (1918)

—  The Russian Empire/Soviet Union (1918-1921; 1990s)

—  Yugoslavia (1990s)

—  The United Kingdom of Great Britain (“Devolution” underway in Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

And as-yet unfilled national aspirations:

—  Kurds

—  Basques

—  Catalonians in Spain

—  Mexican Native groups

—  Canadian and US First Nations

.

National Government Powers

—  Immigration

—  Transportation

—  Telecommunications

—  Some resources

—  Native Affairs

—  Foreign Affairs

—  Defence

—  Criminal justice

—  Agriculture

—  Industry

—  Banking and macroeconomic issues

—  Some labour law

—  Regulation of key sectors

—  Fisheries

—  Environment (some)

—  Energy

—  Health (standards)

—  Unemployment Insurance

—  Old Age Pensions

—  RCMP

—  Prisons

—  Parks

—  Federally-chartered corporations

Provincial Powers

—  Health care

—  Education

—  Highways

—  Municipalities (creatures of the provinces)

—  Electricity

—  Resources

—  Environment

—  Administration of most of the courts

—  Civil law

—  Rules regarding securities (stocks and bonds)

—  Corporation rules

Look at how many of those powers and services overlap… (and we’ll ignore the overlap with cities…)

Canadian de-Confederation Movements

—  Nova Scotia before World War I

—  Newfoundland

—  Quebec

—  Alberta (and sometimes Saskatchewan)

—  First Nations 

Nova Scotia:

—  Nova Scotia felt strong-armed into Confederation

—  Almost all of the members of the first Nova Scotia legislature and the MPs elected by Nova Scotians in 1867 wanted out of Confederation.

—  Many gripes the same as Nova Scotia’s

Newfoundland:

—  Idea that Britain forced the colony into Confederation in 1949

—  Many Newfoundlanders believe Ottawa has cheated the province re: resources

—  In the early 2000s, the Newfoundland government took down all the flags on provincial buildings

Quebec

—  Strong nationalist movement with Survivance as the underlying idea.

—  World War I and World War II conscription (forced military service)

—  The Quiet Revolution

—  The 1976 Parti Quebecois victory

—  The 1980 Referendum

—  The Meech Lake-Charlottetown Accord

—  The 1995 Referendum

—  “Quebec is a Nation”

—  “Values “ Charter

Alberta

—  The National Energy Program

—  The Western Canada Concept

—  The Rise of the Reform Party

First Nations

—  Are they part of the Confederation pact?

—  Have they ever given up sovereignty

—  Self-government: more than just “reserves”?

—  Plus, “regions” do not fit provincial boundaries

—  And within the giant provinces, there are communities within communities: ethnic groups, linguistic minorities, First Nations, and even sub-regions (Northern Ontario-Southern Ontario)

Challenges for the Future

—  Immigration: Are Canada’s old fights relevant to new Canadians?

—  Is power actually shifting?

—  Does regionalism hide more fundamental problems?

—  Could the national government become irrelevant? 

Mark Bourrie Paper

http://www.gmj.uottawa.ca/1002/v3i2_bourrie.pdf

Here's how I write an academic paper.

Assignment 2: The West and the Rest

This assignment is geared to understanding two things: 1. Western alienation; and 2. the emergence of conservative media voices that dominate in the Prairies.
Preston Manning was leader of the Reform Party from its founding in the early 1990s until he was forced out in 2000 by Stockwell Day, the former finance minister of Alberta.
Manning, the son of an Alberta premier, started the party when Westerners began vocally complaining that all the important political and economic decisions were made in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. Albertans were particularly opposed to any federal role in energy policy. The Reform Party also fed on anger over concessions made to Quebec in constitution talks in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Manning led the Reform Party to a strong third-place finish in the 1992 election, and became leader of the Opposition in 1997. This occurred despite Manning's original opposition to running candidates for Parliament in eastern Canada, and his later decision to run Reform candidates against Progressive Conservatives everywhere. That decision, which split the conservative movement, may well have been the main reason Jean Chretien won three majority governments -- in 1993, 1997, and 2000. Often, Liberals were elected in three-way fights with juts 34 per cent of the vote. Many of the reasons for Manning's inability to win nationally are mentioned in the Gunter piece.
After Day was trounced in the 2000 election, Stephen Harper gained control of what was left of the Reform Party and merged it with the Progressive Conservatives. In 2006, Harper won a minority government.
Almost all the work on this assignment can be done through Google and Google Scholar. You should cite all of your sources, including web pages.

1. I want you to explain what writer Lorne Gunter says Preston Manning did that makes him a Canadian statesman (it's in the text. You don't need any other sources). 

2. I want you to discuss regional parties like the original Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois and argue whether they strengthen democracy and the federal government or harm it.

3. I want you to think about why the Reform Party no longer exists and talk about the reasons you come up with. As well, keep in mind that the Bloc Quebecois, which, in 1993, was the second-largest party in Parliament, has just a handful of members now.

The paper is due Friday, Nov. 8

Preston Manning, profiled by Lorne Gunter, National Post, Nov. 11, 2005

 

'The West Wants In!" With those four words -- originally coined by magazine publisher Ted Byfield -- Preston Manning saved Canada from a two-front war for national unity.

 

 

 

The National Post is conducting a search to find Canada's most important "public intellectual." In today's instalment, Lorne Gunter profiles Preston Manning. Other profiles, as well as contest rules, appear at www.national post.com/beautifulminds.

- - -

'The West Wants In!" With those four words -- originally coined by magazine publisher Ted Byfield -- Preston Manning saved Canada from a two-front war for national unity.

Indeed, it was just one of Manning's words -- in -- that prevented the West from joining Quebec in agitating for the break-up of the country.

If Manning had raged "The West wants out!" at his Western Assembly in Vancouver in the spring of 1987, most of the nearly 100,000 Westerners who eventually joined his Reform Party (born four months later in Winnipeg) would have joined a Manning-led separatist movement instead.

All Western alienation lacked to transform it into Western separatism two decades ago was a credible leader. And while Manning was barely known back then, he was credible. Instantly. At least with Westerners.

With his Sunday-school-teacher appearance, his pinched, staccato speaking voice, his long, meticulously researched speeches and his genuine respect for ordinary people (one of Preston's favourite expressions is "the common sense of the common people"), Manning didn't seem capable of guile. He was to Western conservatives what Tommy Douglas had been to an earlier generation of Western socialists: the font of all knowledge and wisdom on the issues that mattered most.

Peter Lougheed, Allan Blakeney or Bill Bennett may have had more name recognition -- and arguably more charisma -- at the time. Each of them would have been a more natural choice as separatist leader, at least from an image-maker's perspective.

But there was just something about Manning. Maybe it was his preacher-like style or the qualities he shared with the ideal Scout master (honest, loyal, dutiful, modest, prepared). Perhaps it was his encyclopedic knowledge of the West's history, or his thorough understanding of how Canada's institutions worked (and didn't) and what could be done to rescue them and make them fairer.

Whatever it was Manning possessed that made people follow him, they followed him in droves, as loyally and fervently as I have ever seen voters follow a politician, with the possible exception of Pierre Trudeau. As Manning stumped from community hall to farm kitchen to church basement, they joined up to follow him toward the centre, toward Ottawa and a renewed Confederation, rather than away from all that.

As a public intellectual, Manning's greatest achievement may have been re-channelling the growing desire among Westerners to pull up their tents and leave Canada.

He's a different man now -- and I don't mean the coiffed hair. He was forced during and after his fight in 2000 for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance to become a politician. There is still more of the manse than the backroom in him. But his tactics at the time showed he could fight dirty, if not well, to retain and then reclaim his leadership.

And his vow to "do politics differently," which he made when he came to Ottawa at the head of the 52-seat Reform caucus in 1993, didn't turn out exactly as planned. It was naive to think the rest of the country would transform its institutions and political practices just for him, or his vision of a "New Canada," or his brand of populism, or even just to placate the West.

Still, it is hard to think of another politician -- prime minister or otherwise -- who has done more to transform Canada since Brian Mulroney.

Manning founded not one, but two political parties -- Reform and the Alliance -- that both became the official opposition. And now, with his new Manning Centre for Building Democracy (www.manningcentre.ca), he is seeking to build an intellectual and political infrastructure that can seed and grow conservative thinkers, activists, lawyers, writers and politicians who will, in time, achieve the intellectual transformation of the country's institutions that his political forays began but never completed.

With his books and reforming zeal, Manning has long been ahead of the curve. In 1967, along with his father, former Alberta premier Ernest Manning, Preston wrote a treatise entitled Political Realignment in which the two of them advocated a "social conservatism." Not conservative on social issues such as abortion and gay rights -- conservatism with a social conscience, with people rather than government as the agents for social justice. It predated George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" by more than 30 years.

At least Manning is consistent. He's still using his public intellectualism to stir the pot for political realignment.