Poli Sci

Front 1

National Policy

Back 1

A broad nation- building policy of sir John A. MacDonald unveiled in 1879 that included tarriff protection for central canadian manufacturing, massive immigration, and the construction of a national transportation system.
Allowed ontario to gain employment in producing tractors for western canada but western farmer canadians felt contrary to there interests because tarrifs meant that it cost more for them to buy supplies (such as tractors) then they could sell their products for.Eventually tarriffs were illiminated through free trade agreement of 1989.

Front 2

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

Back 2

Committee of the british parliament that functioned as canada's final court of appeal until 1933 and until all other cases, notably constitutional, until 1949. significantly affeted the division of power between the federal and provincial governemnt. It was the JCPC who maxamized the power of the prov. govnt. and min. power of fed. govnt. when Sir. John A. Macdonald was attempting to have a strong central government. An esample of a historical decision by the JCPC was the court decision that women were people in 1929. Thus women allowed to sit on the senate.

Front 3

Statute of Westminister 1931

Back 3

British Parliament declares canada and other dominians fully independent in 1931.
- The head of state, queen and gov. gen., becomes figure head.
- British parliament no longer able to disalow canadian legislation.
- Colonial laws validation act (dominion status void if against imperial parliament) void
- Dominion allowed to enact acts

Front 4

Chinese Head Tax

Back 4

Fixed fee charged for each chinese person entering canada. First levied with chinese immigration act of 1885. Discourage chinese from entering canada, after completion of canadian pacific railway. ended with chinese immigration act of 1923, which stoppe chinese immigration except for business people, clergy,educators, students and few more.
- collected approximatily 1.5 billion in head taxes

Front 5

senetorial clause

Back 5

An many MPs as senetorial seats. unfair mp representation.

Front 6

Grandfather clause

Back 6

guarantees each province has at least as many Members of Parliament now as it had in 1985

Front 7

Plurality

Back 7

Party A: 40%
Party B: 30%
Party C: 30%
• You only need to get more votes then any one else and thus possible to get 100% of the seats.
• Why do we use it?
• Simple --> all you have to do is put a check by a name. Easy isn’t always right
• Tendency towards majority government: stable, but debatable
• Representative/constituency link: accountability, avoids fragmentation but doesn’t represent all

Front 8

Campaign finance laws

Back 8

1867 to 1974:
- No laws
- Many scandals
- E.g. The Pacific Scandal 1872
- Party bagmen went to corporate for money. Liberal and conservatives 100% funded before 1974
- Gave unequal rights to corporate head influence on party policies


1974-2003
- Parties reimbursed for some expenses by state
- Control expenditures
- 2003: weak control of 3rd party adds
- 2006: corporate aren’t allowed to donate: only makes it harder to track who they give money to
- 2003-present: Bill C-24: only individual contribute to parties, limits corporate $, disclosure/limits on nomination/party leadership contest
- Rise in public subsidy to parties

Front 9

Brokerage model

Back 9

- Both a description and recommendation
- Parties create coalition of support each election
- Policy stances shift as parties compete for same political/ideology space
- Parties try to mediate between cleavages, down playing significance of same, particularly class or Quebec nationalism
- Leader oriented
- By contrast, non-brokerage parties have well defined and stable support, clear policy/ideology stances, narrow cleavage base/concern, organize around social groups.
- Key brokerage parties: liberal, conservatives
- Less-then brokerage: NDP, Reform
- Non-brokerage: Bloc Quebecois

Front 10

cadre party

Back 10

- Role of parties related to form of organization
- Three main organization exists only at elections
- Top down; little democracy
- Elite funded
- Liberals: 1885-1919
- Conservatives: 1885-1942
- Definition: parties dominated by politically elite groups of activists. The suffrage was largely restricted to taxpayers and property owners, and, even when the right to vote was given to larger numbers of people, political influence was essentially limited to a very small segment of the population. The mass of people were limited to the role of spectators rather than that of active participants.
The cadre party is one of the three forms of political party organization. The cadre party has little democracy and is based on a elite funded and very limited membership (taxpayers, wealthy, property owners). It forced a majority of the population to act as an audience to the political scene as they did not have the ability to weight in their opinion. This particular party collaboration is very important to the founding of Canadian politics since the cadre party was used in Canadian politics from 1885 to 1942. The Liberals were a cadre party from 1885 to 1919 before gradually moving towards a modified cadre party, then a modified mass party, to settle for now onto a mediated party (although some would argue that they still are more of a modified mass party.). The conservatives held on to the notion of the cadre party from 1885-1942 before taking the same political organization road as the liberals. Unlike the liberals (mediated party in 1988), they did not become a mediated party until 1993.

Front 11

class as a social location

Back 11

- A way of aggregating people
- Not just money but status
- Problems not necessarily rooted in structure of economy or politics
- Possible solutions: education, merit, regulation
- Does class difference mean not true democracy: more class = more power?
- Must have free media for democracy
- Conclusion: rich have wealth and that is the source of their power.
When defining class as a social location, it is meant that the rich have all the wealth and that is the source of power. But social location can also mean that status isn’t necessarily money, it can mean education, merit, regulation. Therefore, the problem doesn’t especially lay in the structure of politics or economy but in the education people receive or the merit they receive and even the regulations that are in place. The issue is that rich can easily have access to these and thus are more likely to gain this power, or status. Social location looks upon social welfare as correction to be made and not as a political result. Critics argue that, if you look upon class as a social location, it does not interfere with politics because social location does not have clear class distinction. In fact, surveys show that people, in genera, agree that there is no strong class identification, no class effect in party voting, and that even the NDP ‘class’ has mixed voters.`