Embedded Files
The "Three Doors" image above was your Learning Log image for today.
After completing your Learning Log entry, begin thinking further about the above image, as well as the additional discussion questions below. In your notebook or online, under the title, "Governance in Canada: The Three Doors," respond to these questions, linked here: The Three Doors.
a) "The Three Doors" analogy was developed by the BC Assembly of First Nations. How do you think "The Three Doors" image visualizes the past, present, and future of governance in Canada?
b) Consider the photographs related to the Potlatch -- banned by the Canadian government from 1884 to 1951 -- and the quotation below. How do they relate to "The Three Doors" analogy?
"We are a 'potlatching' peoples. A Potlatch is a traditional institution of governance -- a central one that we still practice. It is here that our names are passed down or given from generation to generation. It is where laws are made, disputes are settled, people are married, and wealth is redistributed." (Wilson-Raybould 5)
Puglaas (Jody Wilson-Raybould) describing this institution of her people, the Musgamagw Tsawateineuk/Laich-Kwil-Tach people of northern Vancouver Island.
In class, we will discuss the idea of consensus -- "a general agreement; the opinion of all or most of the people consulted." (We may have tried to arrive at a consensus over a territorial dispute when we ran our United Nations simulation). How might such an approach be applied to the governance of the Musgamagw Tsawateineuk/Laich-Kwil-Tach people and others who share the potlatch tradition?
Notions of power and "governing" authority are complex subjects. Different cultures have different worldviews and mindsets concerning these ideas. Consider this excerpt from Hugh Brody's Living Arctic:
Brody, Hugh. Living Arctic. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 1987. 111-133.
A similar perspective is offered by Puglaas (Jody Wilson-Raybould) in her book, From Where I Stand (pages 140-145):
Wilson-Raybould, Jody. From Where I Stand. Vancouver: Purich Books, 2019. 140-145.
Depending upon our physical distancing circumstances, we may or may not gather for a special, slightly different edition of "Civics - Systems of Government Theatre." Stay tuned for instructions on how we will try to generate these performances for us to view. If it's nice, of course, we'll go outside!
If you are working from home today, it is now time for you to prepare for The Game we will be playing for the rest of the year. It is called Power and Purpose.
Follow this link to begin your preparation:
Here is a recap of what we hope to have learned from our participation in "Civics - Systems of Government Theatre:"
Our goal is to view our players perform their take on oligarchy. From their performance, we will try to identify different elements that led us to the following definition: "a system of government in which a few people rule." We will note several different kinds of oligarchies: theocracy (rule by a few religious individuals; plutocracy (rule by the wealthy); a natural aristocracy (technically, rule by the most capable); and an unnatural aristocracy (rule by the "upper," privileged class, the "nobility.")
Governance introduced by European settlers to Canada experienced a transition from a replica of French provincial government to a form of oligarchical government -- before a form of responsible government emerged along the lines of what is Canada's current governmental system.
Explore this transition by finding the answers to the handout "Changes in "Settler" Government in Canada." If you did not receive this handout in class, a copy of (and a link to) it is on display here. Consult your textbook, pages 19-23, and other sources. Be sure to File, Make a Copy, Save as First Name_Last Name_Original Title of Document. Move document to your Civics Folder on your Google Drive.
This is an image of Lord Elgin. The name rings a bell for us Lisgarites -- think Elgin Street, The Lord Elgin Hotel. It is the subject of your learning log today.
Based on your work on the "Changes in "Settler" Government in Canada" document, what key role did Lord Elgin play in bringing about "responsible government" to Canada? Who had previously "advised" governors general before Lord Elgin changed things up? Who did he say he would listen to instead of the oligarchical, appointed councils?
It all happened in 1848 with his signing of the "Rebellion Losses Bill." It was the beginning of the system of government in Canada we have today. Ever since, Canada's governors general have signed into law bills passed by a majority in the House of Commons. In essence, whose "advice" does Canada's Governor General take?
Here is an answer key for that worksheet.
Before we complete our look at systems of government, it is time to set the stage further for our "Purpose and Power" game.
Our work on the game will be significantly modified to accommodate the time restrictions imposed by the Physical Distancing schedule. Instructions will be provided on how to proceed. For now, DO NOT proceed as instructed in the paragraph below.
Part I of your summative work for this course is outlined in the document below. Have a look at the instructions and decide which issue area you would like to focus on. As we continue to work through other material during class time, note that Part I of the summative is also independent work to be completed at home. You may also get a start on this now. We will also be continuing our look at systems of government.
What are the origins of "government" from the beginnings of humanity?
Strangely, the reading that you did as part of the "Purpose and Power: The Game" exercise (pages 7-12 in the textbook) starts its look at the "Origins of Government" with the subtitle, Athens -- The Birthplace of Democracy. But obviously, the idea of government has been with us longer than 500 BCE, some 2,500 years ago.
Why not go back 200,000 years more, or earlier, when the evidence suggests the earliest humans -- as their ancestors had been doing hundreds of thousands before them -- needed much the same ideas as we still do to organize our lives together?
We could certainly go back to at least 3000 BCE, 5,000 years ago to the ancient kings, emperors, and pharaohs of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and elsewhere to find the roots of different systems of government we've been exploring.
The textbook reading, however, jumps to ancient Greece and the city-state of Athens, where its citizens -- excluding women, slaves, and foreign-born people -- organized themselves into the world's first democracy (demos Greek for people, cratos Greek for power: people power).
Our players from the famous "Civics - Systems of Government Theatre" put together a skit which dramatized this definition of democracy: a form of government in which the people rule directly by assembling in meetings in order to vote on the issues (direct democracy); or indirectly by going to the polls in order to elect representatives who will act on their behalf (indirect or representative democracy). Canada is a representative democracy, but a particular variety. More on that later...
The textbook reading takes us next to the Roman Empire, highlighting their use of bureaucracy (a kind of organized system of civil servants needed to administer the empire); this is not a system of government per se, but definitely a part of how the Roman Empire was governed. Pictured here is Octavian, the first emperor of the Roman Empire, which began 31 BCE (not, by the way, the erroneous date the textbook provides; it was preceded by the Roman Republic dating back to 500 BCE.; the textbook, with its Western bias, is also less-than-accurate about the Romans being the earliest pioneers of bureaucracy -- Chinese civilization beat them to it.
Alas, the western part of the Roman Empire collapsed around 476 CE, and in different parts of what is now Europe any number of monarchs emerged, and would be in power, one way or another, for the next 1,400 years as systems of government, old and new, continued to develop.
Part of this evolution in government saw a transition from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy. What happened? Our players from the famous "Civics - Systems of Government Theatre" put together a skit which dramatized the definition of absolute monarchy - a system of government in which a state is ruled by a supreme leader, such as a king, queen, or often an emperor, whose power is unlimited and achieved through heredity (i.e., passed down from the leader to the next person in line in their family, typically the oldest son, generation by generation). Louis XIV, pictured here with red high heels, is a good example of one such monarch. He ruled France from 1643 to 1715 from his palace in Versailles.
Note the definition of absolute monarchy in our list. Meanwhile, in England, a different kind of monarchy, dramatized by the players from our famous "Civics - Systems of Government Theatre," slowly emerged.
A constitutional monarchy is a system of government whose constitution limits the power of the monarch. Canada's former Queen Elizabeth II, was, like her son King Charles III, a constitutional monarch. She is pictured here (in pink) with Ottawa Mayor Jackie Holzman in 1997. Notice the young man on the far right. Just saying...
Here is King Charles III in a photograph of British Prime Minister Liz Truss in their first meeting after he became King. Only days before, she had met with Queen Elizabeth as part of the tradition of forming a new government in constitutional monarchies like Britain and Canada.
On September 8, 2022, Elizabeth II died at the age of 96. She had been the Queen, and therefore Canada’s Head of State, for seventy years, since 1952.
According to the Constitution and laws of Canada, what would happen next Consider the following scenario, linked here.
Thus, Canada is both a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy. Note the definition of constitutional monarch in your ongoing list. The Governor General, discussed earlier (recall Lord Elgin, for example) has, throughout Canada's British history, been the representative of the British Crown in Canada.
In 2021, Inuk leader and Canadian public servant Mary Simon became Canada's first Governor General of Indigenous descent.
Simon replaced Julie Payette, who was, among other things, an astronaut.
Magna Carta.pdfTo understand how the concept of constitutional government slowly emerged in England over the last 800 years, you have to go back to the year 1215.
Open up this link to the document you will need. It is also on display below.
The Magna Carta was a beginning. The idea that no one was above the law, that the King himself was subject to the law, took hold; it protected the Barons from arbitrary taxation, as well as against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. Other legal protections were introduced. In other words, the power of the monarch was limited by a constitution of sorts - the beginnings of a constitutional monarchy -- or at least the concept of one. There was some backsliding with King John's son, Henry III, and even a brief civil war. But during that time, in 1265, Simon de Montfort, having captured the King, summoned knights and other representatives to England's first Parliament - from the French word, parlement, "a talking together." Restored to power, Henry III continued this practice of consultation.
In 1642, the English Civil War broke out. King Charles I was overthrown and beheaded, and England came under the authoritarian rule of Oliver Cromwell, who named himself "Lord Protector" in 1653. A few years after his death in 1658, a new parliament was elected and King Charles I's son was invited back to England from exile in France to rule as King. England's monarchy was restored (the so-called "Restoration"), but Parliament was careful to limit Charles II's power. When his son, James II, came to power, he demonstrated a certain arrogance. It didn't help that he was also Catholic, and after his wife gave birth to a son, his enemies in Parliament invited James' daughter Mary (a Protestant) and her husband, William of Orange (of The Netherlands), to rule. It was a bloodless coup, the so-called Glorious Revolution. This move solidified England's constitutional monarchy. In 1689, William III and Mary II agreed to the Declaration of Rights, which very specifically limited the powers of England's monarch.
Through it all, the 17th century English political philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke observed, thought, and wrote. You have studied their positions as part of your preparation for our upcoming "Purpose and Power" game.
Consider, as well, how their ideas on human nature and government can be seen as both justification, and an argument against, other systems of government we have already explored. Recalling the skits created by the players from the famous "Civics - Systems of Government Theatre" and the definitions we noted, how might the ideas of Hobbes support the notion of a dictatorship - a government in which one person's rule is law, and where power is usually achieved and maintained through violence and propaganda; or totalitarianism - a system of government in which, typically, one political party and/or ideology exercises absolute control over all phases of the people's lives and where power is similarly achieved and maintained? How might the ideas of Locke run counter to such systems of government?
The last century has seen its share of totalitarian dictatorships. Another observer of such developments was English author George Orwell, who wrote, among other books, Animal Farm, in 1945. This was, of course, right in the midst not only of several totalitarian, fascist dictatorships coming to an end in Italy and Germany, but the ongoing totalitarian dictatorship of Josef Stalin in the Soviet Union. This regime emerged after the Russian Revolution of 1917. The Communist Party, led at the time by Vladimir Lenin, promised to make the Communist ideas of German philosopher Karl Marx -- "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" -- a reality in Russia. It became the Soviet Union, and turned out to be a different reality altogether. What was George Orwell's take on this state of affairs? Your task is below, along with a link to the document.
Animal Farm 1.pdfAnimal pg 2.pdfWe have now had a good look at all the different systems of government we set out to explore, as well as what led up to how government works today in Canada. This provides us with solid background for where we go next.
We begin our next lesson by deepening our understanding of the workings of government in Canada.
Fundamentally (we hope), government is about getting things done. There is no end to what people can accomplish when we work together. Government is one key way that we pool our resources together in order to make decisions about what and how to get things done, and then to execute those decisions. What are the things that government can and should do?
In class or at home, brainstorm a list of different things that government does. What would not get done, for example, if it were not for the government? Are there responsibilities that government takes care of in our society that we could get done without government?
Create a document with the title: What Government Does and start brainstorming. How long a list can we create?
(if we are working from home on this exercise, we will brainstorm together on this linked document):
Class Brainstorm: What Government Does
Once you think our list is complete, consider which responsibilities should be carried out by the Federal government? the Provincial Government? the municipal (city) government? Why? Consider, also, the same question as it might apply to First Nations communities and individuals living across the land.
As we learned during our look at the evolution of government in Canada, a coalition government from Canada West and East, led by John A. Macdonald, convinced Maritime leaders holding a conference in Charlottetown to discuss the possibilities of local union in 1864 to postpone their own discussions in favour of attending a conference of all the provinces to be held at Quebec City. The Quebec Conference met for two weeks in October of that year. Behind closed doors delegates from Canada, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick debated the resolution:
".....that the best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America will be promoted by a federal union under the Crown of Great Britain, provided such union can be effected on principles just to the several provinces.”
The 72 Resolutions (also known as the Quebec Resolutions) spelt out the division of powers, financial arrangements, and structure of government that would become the basis of the 1867 British North America Act and thus the foundation of the 1982 Constitution and of modern Canada.
Who, apparently, was not invited to these discussions....?
To learn more about Canada's constitution and the "division of powers" in this country, read pages 113-117 in the textbook and complete this related task. It is also linked here: Constitution.
Consider how all of the things that different levels of government in this country do are paid for. How are taxes raised by the different levels of government? Canada has a federal system of government. We are a federation. What does that mean? Why, in the case of our country and others like it, (think the United States) do we have different levels of government? What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a strong, central, federal government?
Pictured here is the inner chamber of the House of Commons (and its temporary location in the West Block of Parliament Hill while it is under renovation).
As we learned earlier, the Magna Carta in 1215 introduced the notion that before the Crown could collect taxes from the people (back then, of course, it was the wealthier Barons), the King or Queen had to receive the consent of the taxpayers -- the idea that there ought not to be arbitrary taxation, that there ought to be consultation. Similarly, we have explored the ideas of liberalism as articulated by John Locke in the 17th Century - the notion that the government serves at the consent of the people: the people agree to support the government, but in return, it agrees to protect and defend the rights of the people. These ideas, along with concept of representative (or indirect) democracy we've learned about, are at the core of why we elect Members of Parliament. But how should we elect our Members of Parliament?
In your notebook (how ever you are keeping one currently -- either in your physical binder or on a device) write the title: Electoral Process in Canada.
Our objective is to come up with an ideal system of indirect democracy for Canada. A few factors to consider:
bear in mind the definition of indirect democracy (i.e., our objective is to elect representatives)
Large amount of territory
our small population
Without looking ahead on the website just yet, brainstorm as a class.
The question poses some interesting challenges. Perhaps you arrived at the idea that the country needed to be divided into electoral districts (we call these ridings). But how do we divide up the country into ridings? By geographic size? By population? How many ridings should there be? How many is too many? Consider these clips, for example, from Star War: The Phantom Menace, even from an architectural perspective...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzw12-QWFBs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo4cFViNLes
On a side note, these clips also help demonstrate how a democratic "state" can so easily fall into totalitarian dictatorship.
Once you've determined how your ridings are going to be organized in your ideal system, you now need, presumably, to elect your representatives. Does this mean one election across the country, and/or, in a sense, an election in each riding? We are a liberal (i.e., John Locke's liberalism) democracy. Do we limit the number of candidates/parties that can be on the ballot? Perhaps with some reasonable criteria. But we'll still end up with quite a few candidates on the ballot. Based on your work on question 2 of the Purpose and Power task, how many political parties have seats in our current House of Commons? There are, of course, many more political parties who have not succeeded in getting candidates elected.
Now, let's imagine our class is one riding and there are, say, six parties/candidates running to represent our riding in the House of Commons. Call them Candidate A, B, C, D, E, and F. Let's have a quick election. Decide which candidate you "support" and "cast" your vote (if we are working from home today, we'll take a few minutes to tabulate the votes electronically by email) (normally, on Election Day, voters go to the polls, usually set up in places like schools and community centres, and cast their votes secretly on a ballot, before placing it in the ballot box and/or right into a ballot-reader).
Let's tabulate the result. Regardless of what our result was, how do we determine who the winner is in the ideal system we're trying to create?
It's not an easy question. To understand it better, work on the following task. Consider the advantages and disadvantages of the two systems discussed. In addition to the glossary terms, explore this further online. A copy of the task is below as well. Electoral Systems.
Electoral.pdf
Consider how this graphic of the 2015 Canadian Federal election results relates to our exploration of the electoral systems.
As the graphic indicates, the electoral system that Canada employs for its Federal elections is the first-past-the-post system.
Canada is divided into 343 ridings. Each riding has a seat in the House of Commons. Each is roughly the same size in population, with some constitutional exceptions for ridings in smaller provinces like Prince Edward Island.
The Prime Minister must call an election every five years, but they can do so at any time (however, a recent Federal law mandates that elections occur on a fixed date after 4 years). At that time, candidates representing different political parties run for election in each of the 343 ridings. The election period officially lasts for about a month.
On election day, the people go to the polls and vote for their candidate of choice. The candidate who receives the most votes in each riding is elected to that riding’s seat in the House of Commons, becoming that riding's Member of Parliament (MP).
People elected to a seat in the House of Commons usually represent a party. The party with the most seats in the House of Commons becomes the government. The leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister.
From their group of MPs, the Prime Minister selects the Cabinet, usually around 25 people. The members of the Cabinet are in charge of making legislation. Each cabinet minister is usually in charge of a government department.
The leader of the party with the next greatest number of seats becomes the Leader of the Opposition. The job of the opposition is to criticize the legislation proposed by the cabinet.
In order to pass its legislation, the cabinet must present it to the House of Commons for several votes.
All MPs vote on the legislation. The MPs belonging to each party almost always vote together. If a majority of MPs vote in favour of the legislation, it passes. As a result, the government’s legislation usually passes with few changes.
As part of your preparation for the "Power and Purpose" game, you have already completed a flow chart on all the steps required in this process of how a bill becomes a law. Utilizing this process will help you in our game.
Normally, another part of our game would involve the simulation of a meeting of the Federal Cabinet. Because of time limitations imposed by our physical distancing schedule, we are modifying the final task discussed below. Therefore, you need not bother with the instructions below. Instead, await your instructions in class and on the VLE site.
Your preparation for this meeting, and the meeting itself, is the final part of your Summative for the course. You will continue to work on this as part of your independent work in the course -- it is the next and final step of the Initial Research task you have already begun.
On display here, along with the links, is a listing of the different Federal government departments (more or less corresponding with the research topics you have been working on); as well as the Cabinet Meeting assignment.
Open up the list of Federal Departments and determine which one corresponds to the research topic you selected. You will prepare for our Cabinet meeting as the Cabinet Minister for your Federal Department. Confirm your "Cabinet portfolio" with the teacher on the Discussion Forum. I can also answer any other questions you may have.
Cabinet Resp 2020.pdfCabinet Summ.pdfCab Summ p2.pdf
POWER AND PURPOSE: THE GAME
It is time now, however, to play our long-awaited "Power and Purpose Game"! This is a formal evaluation and (normally would be) the lead up to the Summative. Your success depends now on how much preparation you are able to demonstrate in class, how much power you are able to accumulate, and what you do with that power. Power and Purpose: The Game.
As part of your evaluation, the teacher will monitor your progress.
We have completed our introduction to how government works in Canada, in particular our electoral system. Having also completed the preparation work distributed for homework as we wrapped up our NGO presentations, as well as your flow chart on "How a Bill Becomes a Law," we are ready to proceed with the set up of the Power and Purpose Game.
First, we must determine where you stand!
In your preparation work, your instructions in the Power and Purpose handout were to read pages 7-12 in the textbook; and then to examine and record the positions of 17th century English political philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke on human nature and government. You were asked to determine whose position you agree with and why...and to defend your opinion with reasons. We will have this debate in class!
Before we resume our work on the Purpose and Power Game, consider the following questions. Based on these election results from the 2019 Federal Election...? And the 2021 Federal Election?
Who forms the government?
Is it a majority or a minority government?
If the latter (a minority), what obstacles does the governing party face? (hint: if a government loses a major vote in the Parliament, it falls and a new election must be held). So, obstacles?
What must a minority government do in order to both maintain power and pass Bills?
Do these seat numbers add up to 338 (the number of seats there were in those elections)? Why or why not?
In relation to minority governments and confidence votes, consider the following exercise:
Confidence votes and Canada's Supply Management system
These observations may come in handy for you as we resume playing Purpose and Power: The Game!
You have determined what your purpose is. Now it is time to achieve power...
Remember that the object of the game is to achieve as much personal, political power as you can based on your understanding of how our parliamentary system works. Ask yourself:
How much personal political power have I accumulated so far? How can I hold on to that power?
In Canada's parliamentary system, how can I use that power to achieve my political purpose?
As part of your preparation work at home and final "Power and Purpose: The Game" submission to the Dropbox, what research can you undertake to support something YOU think you should do with YOUR power? What PURPOSE do you want to fulfill with your political POWER?
Finally, now that you've reached this point, are there approaches for a power and purpose "Win-Win" outcome for all? A curious, creative problem to solve collaboratively!
Good luck and Enjoy!
Power and Purpose: Working Document Online
Consider how these images relate to our Cabinet Activity and/or the point we have reached in Purpose and Power: The Game!
Is it time to figure out how best to put Canada's $350 billion budget to work for Canadians, the country, and the world?
Page updated
Report abuse