Professor David Rayside, Jerry Sabin and I have put together a panel on the recent Alberta election. The discussion will take place on Monday, May 14 from 2:00 to 4:00 in Sidney Smith Hall at University of Toronto, room 3130.
The Alberta election produced a surprising victory for incumbent Progressive Conservative Premier Alison Redford despite all polls prior to the vote predicting a majority government for the Wildrose Alliance and its leader Danielle Smith.
The panel will generate a lively discussion on what the election results mean for the future of the province, its links with the rest of Canada, and the public opinion industry. In addition to our work exploring the role of faith in Alberta party politics, Professor Chris Cochrane will present on the perils of election prediction, and Gregory Eady and Yannick Dufresne will share their findings from the Alberta Vote Compass project.
I hope to see you there!
This week I took part in the first annual Workshop for PhD students in Canadian Politics at the University of Toronto. It was a great chance to learn about the amazing work being carried out by my colleagues and to get some very valuable feedback about the proposal for my own dissertation, which will compare All-Party Groups in Canada, Northern Ireland, Ontario, Scotland and the UK.
A very big thank you goes out to Professor Peter Loewen for organizing the event, and to Professor Chris Cochrane, Professor Robert Vipond, and fellow student Andrew Mcdougall for their comments on my work.
Download: Dissertation Proposal, Presentation
Today I presented on my dissertation research at the “Lunch and Learn” series sponsored by the Bell Chair in Canadian Parliamentary Democracy at Carleton University. It was a great opportunity to meet other graduate students and to get some feedback on my ideas while I’m still working on my proposal. I would like to thank Bill Cross for invitation, and also those who asked questions or raised new issues to consider.
My paper for this year’s meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association looks at the development of Canadian legislative studies over the past 25 years. In past authors like Jonathan Malloy complained that the subfield was dominated by the “responsible government approach,” which led Canadian scholars to focus on defending the country’s existing parliamentary system rather than trying to study it systematically. As such, few attempts were made to compare the performance of Canadian legislatures with those in other jurisdictions.
In contrast, my findings show that over the past decade Canadians working in legislative studies have begun taking theories from the comparative literature and using them to shed light on Canadian developments – a trend that reflects the broader “comparative turn” in Canadian Political Science. However, my findings also suggest that Canadians working in legislative studies are so far limited to being “takers” of comparative theory, and will not become “makers” until they begin directly comparing the legislatures in Canada with those elsewhere.
Download: Paper, Presentation
What happens in a democracy when the views of experts and the desires of the people come into conflict? This was the question addressed at the 2011 Walter Gordon Symposium – an annual event put on by Massey College and the School of Public Policy and Governance to discuss a subject of immediate importance to Canada.
I had the privilege to present on research that I have been assisting Professor David Rayside with on the relationship between religious-activism and Canadian political parties. Specifically, the research looks at the factors that led the Ontario government to abandon changes to the province’s Sex Ed curriculum following protests by religious conservatives. Ultimately we concluded that it was not the pressure from the religious conservatives themselves that sparked the government’s reversal, but rather the fear that the issue could resonate with other constituencies as well, such as Catholic voters and new Canadians.
On February 10th, I presented a paper that I coauthored with Professor Peter Loewen of University of Toronto and Michael MacKenzie of UBC. Our research looked at whether differences in population between national level constituencies in Canada and the UK affects either the quality of the representation that citizens receive from their elected representatives or their overall views of democracy.
Using both survey and experimental research we found that there was no clear relationship between constituency population and citizens’ experiences of democracy. This result, which contradicts the accepted wisdom, suggests that governments in both countries may have more flexibility to create ridings with smaller than average populations so as improve the representation of both less-populated rural areas or communities of common interest.
The paper was well received and the conference, put on by the Honourable Dick and Ruth Bell Chair for the Study of Canadian Parliamentary Democracy, provided a wonderful opportunity to connect and exchange ideas with graduate students from across the country.
Today I presented some of my research on Canada’s recent experience with minority governments at the “Minority Report” conference at Wilfrid Laurier University. It was an honour to appear with such a distinguished group of researchers and to have my work recognized by the institution where I started my studies.
I led off the first panel by comparing the performance of Canada’s recent minority parliaments with the majorities that they followed. The goal of my research has been to help clarify whether minority governments are helpful or harmful to the operation of parliament, and so I conducted the comparison on the basis of four criteria: legislative efficiency, legislative deliberation, the role of private members, and the accountability of the government to parliament. I also examined whether there was any change in the way legislation was passed by the Senate.
Contrary to the critics of minority governments, my results showed that parliaments in which no party has a majority are not any less efficient at passing legislation. Conversely, contrary to minority advocates, these parliaments do not offer any significant improvements in the role of private members or legislative deliberation. However, the minority advocates were correct in that the minority situation did furnish the parliament with a much greater ability to hold the government to account through the Standing Committees.
In terms of the Senate, it was theoretically difficult to isolate the impact of the minority situation since in one of the two recent minorities the Senate was controlled by the governing party while in the other it was controlled by the official opposition. In practice though there was little change in the legislative behaviour of the Senate, with the one exception that more government bills went unpassed (i.e. were left to die on the order paper) when the Senate was controlled by the opposition.