UBC POLI 101 Canadian Politics The Development of Canada What is the Canadian Political Community? http://www.politics.ubc.ca/fcutler/teaching/POLI101

Change in marking scheme: Logistics Change in marking scheme: NO FIRST PAPER!!!!! 5% to tutorial participation; 5% to the final paper Tutorial now 15%; paper now 25% Next week, go to your discussion section Readings will be one week behind the course schedule So… next week discussion will be on 1.1 & 1.2

Context: Size, Population, Geography Canada is BIG: but why does it matter? Diverse regional communities with regional attachments Understanding of other regions limited by distance Economy is regionalized so policy has regional effects Canada is small: but why does it matter? USA next door, 10X our population Only ½% of world pop. (1 in 200 people are Canadian!) Much ‘uninhabited’ land, controversy over use Canada is medium-sized: but why does it matter? Some economies of scale, but not as much as USA Economy – price-takers and trade-takers  dependency Foreign policy – we have to ‘fit in’, play ‘honest broker’ Immigration – obligation(?) to accept immigration?

Indigenous Peoples, European Settlement All this is necessary because history matters – path dependence  history sets context for present. Before European contact, over 50 distinct cultures/languages with well-defined territory. The result of gradual movement from Asia between 20,000 and 1,500 years ago. Early contact was genuinely between nations, but European values denigrated indigenous, non-Christian cultures. British Royal Proclamation (1763) recognized land rights First French, then English settlement pushed westward. Displacement of aboriginal peoples became extensive in the early 1800s. Massive depopulation, mainly disease: 500,000 to 140,000

Quebec Act (1774), Constitutional Act (1791), 4/5 Colonies Quebec Act solidified the French presence in Canada – recognized civil law, Catholic church, signeurial landholding But NO representative assembly, unlike other colonies 1791, two colonies: Upper & Lower Canada Representative Assemblies, but no power NO RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and PEI separate colonies Influx of Loyalists from American colonies 1837 rebellions against lack of responsible, popular gov’t Lord Durham’s Report (1838): Assimilation of French population Re-unification of the Canadas – one assembly Responsible government (came slowly – 1848)

Political Reasons: Union of Canadas = stalemate: Confederation - Why Economic Reasons: Britain cancelled preferential access and Americans cancelled reciprocity (free trade), so a need for an ‘intercolonial’ market and therefore an intercolonial railway Political Reasons: Union of Canadas = stalemate: Two parties: reformers and conservatives Two groups: French and English (Lower & Upper) Military Reasons: Threat of US annexation after US civil war Worry about western border (BC gold rush) Britain didn’t have money to defend Canada

British North America (BNA) Act (1867) Confederation - What British North America (BNA) Act (1867) Canada West (Ont.), Canada East (Quebec), Nova Scotia, New Brunswick (PEI & NF rejected it) Defined governmental structures: Federal arrangement: national & provincial gov’ts House of Commons & Senate Judicial system (courts) “Peace, Order, and Good Government” (POGG) “with a Constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom” Elections and qualifications of citizenship Powers of taxation

How different was it? 1800, 1900, and NOW Think of a political difference, why it was different, and what that meant for people’s lives. Example: patronage 1800 – very little government activity – all patronage A lot of uncertainty in economic affairs (property rights?) Application of law depended on personalities and relationships 1900 – government doing more, large government projects, parties depend on patronage; but professionalizing civil service, freer press Macroeconomy, employment depended on government More stability. But more dangerous for people when things went sour, since there was no social safety net Political participation / debate were linked to money and gov’t jobs NOW?