Suchergebnisse

ON 26 OCTOBER 1992, A MAJORITY OF CANADIANS IN A MAJORITY OF PROVINCES REJECTED THE CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD IN A NATIONAL REFERENDUM. THE ACCORD CAPPED THE "CANADA ROUND" OF CONSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS AND ATTEMPTED TO SATISFY QUEBEC, WHILE ALSO ADDRESSING OTHER PAN-CANADIAN ISSUES. THE ACCORD WAS DEFEATED FOR DIFFERENT REASONS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. IN QUEBEC, THE "NO" SIDE ARGUES THAT THE AGREEMENT DID NOT MEET THEIR DEMANDS FOR GREATER JURISDICTIONAL AUTONOMY WITHIN THE FEDERATION. IN THE REST OF CANADA, THE "NO" SIDE WAS PARTICULARLY SUCCESSFUL IN DEMONSTRATING THAT THE AGREEMENT DEVIATED FORM THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY IN THE TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROVINCES. THESE CRITIQUES, INSPIRED BY DIFFERENT VISIONS OF THE FEDERATION. LEAD IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. IN LIGHT OF THESE DIVISIONS, MANY COMMENTATORS HAVE SUGGESTED THAT INTERGOVERNMENTAL ELITES OUGHT TO ABANDON EFFORTS OF WHOLESALE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE. HOWEVER, POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN QUEBEC MAY FORCE THESE QUESTIONS BACK ONTO THE AGENDA.

AbstractThis article challenges the conventional interpretation of the intellectual origins of Canadian federalism. The article argues that the debate over Confederation can be interpreted as a debate over the meaning of sovereignty. It argues centrally that certain of the most prominent supporters of Confederation were more powerfully attracted to the conception of classical federalism and co-ordinate sovereignty than is usually assumed, thus creating a striking parallel to United States federalism that is not typically recognized. It concludes by showing how this understanding of classical federalism was used with great success in opposing the post-Confederation centralism of John A. Macdonald.

ABSTRACT. THIS ARTICLE CHALLENGES THE CONVENTIONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS OF CANADIAN FEDERALISM. THE ARTICLE ARGUES THAT THE DEBATE OVER CONFEDERATION CAN BE INTERPRETED AS A DEBATE OVER THE MEANING OF SOVEREIGNTY. IT ARGUES CENTRALLY THAT CERTAIN OF THE MOST PROMINENT SUPPORTERS OF CONFEDERATION WERE MORE POWERFULLY ATTRACTED TO THE CONCEPTION OF CLASSICAL FEDERALISM AND CO-ORDINATE SOVEREIGNTY THAN IS USUALLY ASSUMED, THUS CREATING A STRIKING PARALLEL TO UNITED STATES FEDERALISM THAT IS NOT TYPICALLY RECOGNIZED. IT CONCLUDES BY SHOWING HOW THIS UNDERSTANDING OF CLASSICAL FEDERALISM WAS USED WITH GREAT SUCCESS IN OPPOSING THE POST-CONFEDERATION CENTRALISM OF JOHN A. MACDONALD.

AbstractThe rise of the provincial rights movement in the generation after Confederation forms an important chapter in Canadian constitutionalism. In their attempts to understand the provincial rights movement, however, historians and political scientists have paid insufficient attention to the precise constitutional doctrine that was developed to thwart the centralizing designs of Sir John A. Macdonald. This article shows that the sources of this provincialist constitutional doctrine can be found in the Confederation settlement itself. It further shows how the provincial rights movement subsequently was able to use this doctrine to discredit one of the key centralizing devices of the Macdonald constitution—the veto power of disallowance. And it concludes that the legacy of the provincial rights movement continues to inform the way Canadians think about federalism.

AbstractHow "historical" is Canadian political science? This paper sets out to answer this question through an analysis of historically oriented articles that have appeared in this journal from its first volume, in 1968, to 2015. We suggest that historical research in this journal is at once enduring and uneven, a pattern that we then explore in more detail in a case study, spanning forty years, of historical articles that focus on the interconnected themes of the constitution, courts, and federalism. The unevenness of this pattern suggests that the intellectual and methodological foundation of "historical" Canadian political science may not be as firm as it appears. We therefore conclude with a description of some methodological and conceptual tools, originally fashioned within the historically oriented subfield of American political development in the United States, that Canadian political scientists might deploy to probe important and enduring questions of Canadian politics.

Intro -- Contents -- Preface and Acknowledgments -- Part 1 Establishing Benchmarks -- 1 Introduction: The Comparative Turn in Canadian Political Science -- 2 A Quantitative Analysis of the Comparative Turn in Canadian Political Science -- Part 2 Multiculturalism, Diversity, and Rights: Canada's Comparative Advantage -- 3 Is Canadian Multiculturalism Parochial? Canadian Contributions to Theorizing Justice and Ethnocultural Diversity -- 4 Canada as Counternarrative: Multiculturalism, Recognition, and Redistribution -- 5 Canada's Contribution to the Comparative Study of Rights and Judicial Review -- 6 Marketing Canadian Pluralism in the International Arena -- Part 3 Federalism and Multilevel Governance: Canada's Comparative Resurgence -- 7 Is the Secret to Have a Good Dentist? Canadian Contributions to the Study of Federalism in Divided Societies -- 8 Working around the American Model: Canadian Federalism and the European Union -- 9 Empirical Evidence and Pragmatic Explanations: Canada's Contributions to Comparative Federalism -- Part 4 Political Parties and Public Policy: Canada's Comparative Potential -- 10 What's So Bad about Cultivating Our Own Theoretical Gardens? The Study of Political Parties in Canada -- 11 Canadian Voting Behaviour in Comparative Perspective -- 12 Policy Networks and Policy Communities: Conceptualizing State-Societal Relationships in the Policy Process -- 13 How Can Comparative Political Economy Explain Variable Change? Lessons for, and from, Canada -- Conclusion: Are We on the Right Track? -- Notes -- References -- Contributors -- Index -- A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- Q -- R -- S -- T -- U -- V -- W -- Y.