1 Research for this article was carried out under several British Columbia Work-Study and Challenge Grants between 1990 and 1993. I would like to thank Sonya Platter, Linda Young and Zhang Yu Guo for their assistance on this project. I am also grateful to Rebecca Raglon, Melody Hessing, David Laycock, Colin Bennett, Jim Bruton and George Hoberg for comments and discussion on earlier drafts.

2 Wilensky, Harold, The Welfare State and Equality (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975)Google Scholar; and Dye, Thomas, Understanding Public Policy (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1972).Google Scholar

3 See Kerr, Clark, The Future of Industrial Societies: Convergence or Continuing Diversity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; or Brzezinski, Zbigniew and Huntington, Samuel, Political Power USA/USSR (New York: Viking Press, 1964).Google Scholar

4 Bennett, Colin J., “What Is Policy Convergence and What Causes It?,” British Journal of Political Science 21 (1991), 215–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hoberg, George Jr., “Technology, Political Structure and Social Regulation: A Cross-National Analysis,” Comparative Politics 18 (1986), 357–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Von Beyme, Klaus, “Do Parties Matter? The Impact of Parties on the Key Decisions in the Political System,” Government and Opposition 19 (1984), 5–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Castles, Francis and McKinlay, Robert D., “Does Politics Matter? An Analysis of the Public Welfare Commitment in Advanced Democratic States,” European Journal of Political Research 1 (1979), 169–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 See Allison, Graham T. and Halperin, Morton, “Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications,” World Politics 24 (Supplement) (1972), 40–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Although implicit in some of this work, only rarely were mezo-level institutional factors highlighted. See, for example, King, Anthony, “What Do Elections Decide?,” in Butler, David, Penniman, Howard and Ranney, Austin, eds., Democracy at the Polls (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1981), 293–324.Google Scholar

7 See Rose, Richard, “What Is Lesson-Drawing?,” Journal of Public Policy 11 (1991), 3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sabatier, Paul A., “An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy Oriented Learning Therein,” Policy Sciences 21 (1988) 129–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Bennett, Colin J. and Hewlett, Michael, “When States Learn Do They Change? American Lessons, Canadian Learning and the Conceptualization of Policy Change,”Google Scholar paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, 1991.

8 Heclo, Hugh, Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Jordan, A. Grant, “Iron Triangles: Woolly Corporatism and Elastic Nets: Images of the Policy Process,” Journal of Public Policy 1 (1981), 95–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and McCool, Daniel, “Subgovernments and the Impact of Policy Fragmentation and Accommodation,” Policy Studies Review 8 (1989), 264–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Haas, Ernst B., When Knowledge Is Power: Three Models of Change in International Organizations (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990)Google Scholar; and Haas, Peter M., “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Co-ordination,” International Organization 46 (1992), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Hoberg, George, “Sleeping with an Elephant: The American Influence on Canadian Environmental Regulation,” Journal of Public Policy 11 (1991), 107–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 See Harrison, Kathryn and Hoberg, George, “Setting the Environmental Agenda in Canada and the United States: The Cases of Dioxin and Radon,” this Journal 24 (1991), 3–28.Google Scholar

12 Hoberg, George, “Governing the Commons: Environmental Policy in Canada and the United States,” in Simeon, R. and Banting, K., eds., Policy Choices: Political Agendas in Canada and the United States (Kingston: Queen's University School of Policy Studies, 1991).Google Scholar

13 Hoberg, , “Sleeping with an Elephant,” 126Google Scholar; and Hoberg, George, “Environmental Policy: Alternative Styles,” in Atkinson, Michael, ed., Governing Canada: Instruments and Public Policy (Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1993), 307–42.Google Scholar

14 Hoberg, George, “Comparing Canadian Performance in Environmental Policy,” in Boardman, Robert, ed., Canadian Environmental Policy: Ecosystems, Politics, and Process (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1992), 246–62.Google Scholar

15 Bennett, , “What Is Policy Convergence?,” 218.Google Scholar

16 See Hoberg, George Jr., “Risk, Science and Politics: Alachlor Regulation in Canada and the United States,” this Journal 23 (1990), 257–78.Google Scholar

17 See Rosenblum, Walter A., “The Bureaucracy and Environmental Policy,” in Lester, James P., éd., Environmental Politics and Policy (Durham: Duke University Press, 1989), 212–37Google Scholar; and Brown, M. Paul, “Organizational Design as Policy Instrument: Environment Canada in the Canadian Bureaucracy,” in Boardman, ed., Canadian Environmental Policy, 24–42.Google Scholar

18 On policy styles see Richardson, Jeremy, “The Concept of Policy Style,” in Richardson, J. J., ed., Policy Styles in Western Europe (London: Allen and Unwin, 1982), 1–16Google Scholar; and Freeman, Gary P., “National Styles and Policy Sectors: Explaining Structural Variation,” Journal of Public Policy 5 (1985), 467–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 On the history of Canadian environmental law see Estrin, David, “Environmental Law,” Ottawa Law Review 7 (1975), 397–449Google Scholar; Swaigen, John, “Environmental Law 1975–1980,” Ottawa Law Review 12 (1980) 439–88Google Scholar; and Emond, D. P., “Environmental Law and Policy: A Retrospective Examination of the Canadian Experience,” in Bernier, Ivan and Lajoie, Andree, eds., Consumer Protection, Environmental Law and Corporate Power (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), 89–179.Google Scholar

20 Vogel, David, National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; and McCann, Michael W. and Silverstein, Helena, “Social Movements and the American State: Legal Mobilization as a Strategy for Democratization,” in Albo, G., Langille, D. and Panitch, L., eds., A Different Kind of State: Participatory Power and Democratic Administration (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1993), 131–43.Google Scholar

21 Leventhal, Harold, “Environmental Decision-making and the Role of the Courts,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 122 (1974), 509–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Claff, Cindy, Douglas, John, Keller, Karl and More, John, “Federal Environmental Litigation in 1977: National Environmental Policy Act,” Harvard Environmental Law Review 2 (1977), 199–240Google Scholar; and Lucas, Alastair R., “The New Environmental Law,” in Watts, Ronald and Brown, Douglas M., eds., Canada and the State of the Federation 1989 (Kingston: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, 1989), 167–92.Google Scholar

22 Hoberg, George, “Representation and Governance in Canadian Environmental Policy,”Google Scholar paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Kingston, 1991, 24–25.

23 See, for example, Schrecker, Ted, “Of Invisible Beasts and the Public Interest: Environmental Cases and the Judicial System,” in Boardman, ed., Canadian Environmental Policy, 83–108.Google Scholar

24 Roman, Andrew J. and Pikkov, Mart, “Public Interest Litigation in Canada,” in Tingley, Donna, ed., Into the Future: Environmental Law and Policy for the 1990's (Edmonton: Environmental Law Centre, 1990), 165–86.Google Scholar

25 This thesis is most closely associated with the work of Schrecker and Webb. See, among others, Schrecker, Ted, “The Mobilization of Bias in Closed Systems: Environmental Regulation in Canada,” Journal of Business Administration 15 (1984–1985), 43–63Google Scholar; Schrecker, Ted, “Resisting Regulation: Environmental Policy and Corporate Power,” Alternatives 13 (1985), 9–21Google Scholar; Schrecker, Ted, Political Economy of Environmental Hazards (Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1984)Google Scholar; Webb, Kernaghan and Clifford, John C., Policy Implementation, Compliance and Administrative Law (Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1986)Google Scholar; Webb, Kernaghan, Pollution Control in Canada: The Regulatory Approach in the 1980's (Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1988)Google Scholar; and Webb, Kernaghan, “Between Rocks and Hard Places: Bureaucrats, Law and Pollution Control,” in Paehlke, Robert and Torgerson, Douglas, eds., Managing Leviathan: Environmental Politics and the Administrative State (Peterborough: Broadview, 1990), 201–28Google Scholar. See also Rankin, Murray and Finkle, Peter, “The Enforcement of Environmental Law: Taking the Environment Seriously,” University of British Columbia Law Review 17 (1983), 35–58.Google Scholar

26 On these recent cases and their impact see de Pencier, J., “Oldman River Dam and Federal Environmental Assessment Now and in the Future,” Journal of Environmental Law and Protection 2 (1992), 293–316Google Scholar; and Lucas, Alastair R., “Judicial Review of the Environmental Assessment Process: Has Federal Environmental Assessment Been Judicialized?,”Google Scholar paper presented to the 6th CIRL Conference on Natural Resources Law, Ottawa, May 1993. On the more general argument concerning the creation of “Charter Rights” and a more generally litigious Canadian society, see Saunders, J. Owen, ed., The Legal Challenge of Sustainable Development (Calgary: Canadian Institute of Resources Law, 1990)Google Scholar; and Canadian Bar Association, Sustainable Development in Canada: Options for Law Reform (Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association, 1990).Google Scholar

27 Vogel, , National Styles of Regulation, 21.Google Scholar

28 See Melnick, Rowell S., Regulation and the Courts: The Case of the Clean Air Act (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute, 1983).Google Scholar

29 See Aberbach, Joel D., Putnam, Robert D. and Rockman, Bert A., Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981)Google Scholar, chap. 4 esp.; and, more generally, United States Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs, Public Participation in Regulatory Agency Proceedings, Vol. 3 of Study on Federal Regulations (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977)Google Scholar; Eddy, Howard R., “Locus Standi and Environmental Control: A Policy for Comparison,” University of British Columbia Law Review 6 (1972), 193–214Google Scholar; and Wade, H. W. R., “Anglo-American Administrative Law: Some Reflections,” The Law Quarterly Review 81 (1965), 357–79.Google Scholar

30 Schrecker, Ted, “The Political Context and Content of Environmental Law,” in Caputo, Tullio et al. , eds., Law and Society: A Critical Perspective (Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1989), 43–64Google Scholar; Duncan, Linda F., ed., Environmental Enforcement (Edmonton: Environmental Law Centre, 1985)Google Scholar; and Estrin, David and Swaigen, John, eds., Environment on Trial (Toronto: Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation, 1974).Google Scholar

31 See Schrecker, Ted, “The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: Tremulous Step Forward to Retreat into Smoke and Mirrors?,” Canadian Environmental Law Reports 5 (1991), 192–246.Google Scholar

32 See Canadian Environmental Assessment Advisory Council, Review of the Proposed Environmental Protection Act (Ottawa: CEAAC, 1987)Google Scholar. This is partially due to the constitutional difficulties encountered in Canada with regards to the environment. These have resulted in the federal government relying on the provinces for most aspects of environmental control. Lucas, Alastair R., “Jurisdictional Disputes: Is Equivalency a Workable Solution,” in Tingley, ed., Into the Future, 25–36Google Scholar; Giroux, Lorne, Enforcement Practices of Environment Canada (Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Advisory Council, 1987)Google Scholar; Vanderzwaag, David and Duncan, Linda, “Canada and Environmental Protection: Confident Political Faces, Uncertain Legal Hands,” in Boardman, ed., Canadian Environmental Policy, 3–23.Google Scholar

33 This appears to decline from about 40 per cent in the 1970s. However, the question of the actual number of NEPA-inspired court actions in the 1970s is some-what contentious. Wenner found only 765 NEPA cases out of a total 1,900 environmental lawsuits before US federal courts between 1970–1979. Liroff, however, uncovered 1,191 NEPA lawsuits for the same period. Wenner, Lettie M., The Environmental Decade in Court (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982), 6Google Scholar; and Liroff, Richard A., “NEPA Litigation in the 1970s: A Deluge or a Dribble?,” Natural Resources Journal 21 (1981), 328Google Scholar. See also Lake, Laura M., Environmental Regulation: The Political Effects of Implementation (New York: Praeger, 1982).Google Scholar

34 Gall, Gerald L., The Canadian Legal System (Toronto: Carswell, 1983).Google Scholar

35 The Bureau of National Affairs, Environmental Report—Cases (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, 1980–1989)Google Scholar, Vols. 13–29.

36 These included the Dominion Law Reports, the Dominion Reporter Service, Supreme Court Reporter, the Canadian Environmental Law Reporter, the Western Canada Environmental Law Reports and reporters for each of Canada's 10 provinces as well as the WWR, MPLR, MR, FTR and SCCD. These sources were checked manually and by computerized database searches for any cases dealing with significant keywords such as “environment,” “pollution,” etc., which occurred in the decade 1980–1989.

37 Galanter has provided some evidence suggesting the overall rate of litigation on a per capita basis in Canada and the US is approximately the same. See Galanter, Marc, “Reading the Landscape of Disputes: What We Know and Don't Know (and Think We Know) about Our Allegedly Contentious and Litigious Society,” UCLA Law Review 31 (1983), 4–71.Google Scholar

38 For 1970s US data see Wenner, , The Environmental Decade in Court.Google Scholar

39 Franson, R. T. and Burns, P. T., “Environmental Rights for the Canadian Citizen: A Prescription for Reform,” Alberta Law Review 12 (1974), 153–71Google Scholar; Finkle, Peter Z. R. and Lucas, Alastair R., eds., Environmental Law in the 1980s: A New Beginning (Calgary: Canadian Institute for Resources Law, 1981)Google Scholar. See also, more generally, Law Reform Commission of British Columbia, Report on Civil Litigation in the Public Interest (Vancouver: Law Reform Commission of British Columbia, 1980)Google Scholar; and Cromwell, Thomas A., Locus Standi: A Commentary on the Law of Standing in Canada (Toronto: Carswell, 1986).Google Scholar

40 Jeffreys, M. I., “Environmental Enforcement and Regulation in the 1980's: Regina v. Sault Ste. Marie Revisited,” Queen's Law Journal 10 (1984), 43–70Google Scholar; and Elder, P. S., “Environmental Protection through the Common Law,” University of Western Ontario Law Review 12 (1973), 107–71.Google Scholar

41 McLaren, John P. S., “The Common Law Nuisance Actions and the Environmental Battle—Well-Tempered Swords or Broken Reeds?,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 10 (1972), 505–61Google Scholar; and Elder, P. S., “An Overview of the Participatory Environment in Canada,” in Elder, P. S., ed., Environmental Management and Public Participation (Toronto: Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation, 1975), 370–84.Google Scholar

42 These US decisions, which centred on railroad construction in the post-Civil War period, are discussed in Horwitz, Morton J., The Transformation of American Law, 1780–1860 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977)Google Scholar, esp. chap. 3; and Hurst, James Willard, Law and the Conditions of Freedom in the Nineteenth Century United States (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1956), 20–21Google Scholar. The English experience is outlined in Brenner, Joel Franklin, “Nuisance Law and the Industrial Revolution,” Journal of Legal Studies 3 (1974), 403–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Canada, ironically, did not share this experience but rather retained credible private nuisance actions albeit with limited standing entitlements. See Nedelsky, Jennifer, “Judicial Conservatism in an Age of Innovation: Comparative Perspectives on Canadian Nuisance Law 1880–1930,” in Flaherty, David H., ed., Essays in the History of Canadian Law, Vol. 1 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981), 281–322.Google Scholar

43 Sax, Joseph L., “The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention,” Michigan Law Review 68 (1969–1970), 475–566Google Scholar; and Sax, Joseph L., Defending the Environment: A Strategy for Citizen Action (New York: Knopf, 1971).Google Scholar

44 Hunt, Constance D., “The Public Trust Doctrine in Canada,” in Swaigen, John, ed., Environmental Rights in Canada (Toronto: Butterworths, 1981), 151–94.Google Scholar

45 See Chester, Simon, “Class Actions to Protect the Environment: A Real Weapon or Another Lawyer's Word Game?,” in Swaigen, ed., Environmental Rights in Canada, 60–150.Google Scholar

46 Miller, Arthur, “An Overview of Federal Class Actions: Past, Present and Future,” Justice System Journal 4 (1978), 673–87.Google Scholar

47 Webb, Kernaghan, “On the Periphery: The Limited Role for Criminal Offense in Environmental Protection,” in Tingley, ed., Into the Future, 58–69.Google Scholar

48 [1924] S.C.R. 331.

49 See Estey, Willard, “Public Nuisance and Standing to Sue,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 10 (1972), 563–82.Google Scholar

50 See Jaffe, Louis, “The Citizen as Litigant: The Non-Hohfeldian or Ideological Plaintiff,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 116 (1968), 1033–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Albert, Leo A., “Standing to Challenge Administrative Action: An Inadequate Surrogate for Claim for Relief,” Yale Law Journal 83 (1974), 425–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 Anderson, Frederick R., NEPA in the Courts: A Legal Analysis of the National Environmental Policy Act (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973).Google Scholar

52 Roman, Andrew J., “Locus Stanai: A Cure in Search of a Disease?,” in Swaigen, ed., Environmental Rights in Canada, 11–59.Google Scholar

53 On the Supreme Court standing “trilogy” and “quartet,” see Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on the Law of Standing (Toronto: Ministry of the Attorney General, 1989)Google Scholar; and Cromwell, Locus Standi: A Commentary.

54 [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138. In 1976 the Supreme Court ruled in McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors ([1976] 2 S.C.R. 265)Google Scholar that a part of its earlier ruling in Thorson distinguishing between regulatory and legislative pronouncements in granting increased standing was unworkable. In 1981 it ruled in Borowski v. Minister of Justice of Canada ([1981] 2 S.C.R. 575)Google Scholar that constitutionality extended to violations of the (then) non-constitutionally entrenched Canadian Bill of Rights.

55 Gertler, Franklin, Muldoon, Paul and Valiante, Marcia, “Public Access to Environmental Justice,” in Canadian Bar Association, Sustainable Development in Canada: Options for Law Reform (Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association, 1990), 79–97.Google Scholar

56 [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607.

57 Bogart, W. A., “Understanding Standing, Chapter IV: Minister of Finance of Canada v. Finlay,” Supreme Court Law Review 10 (1988), 377–397.Google Scholar

58 3 C.E.L.R.(ns)1989, 287.

59 7 C.E.L.R. (ns)1992.

60 Jaffe, Louis L., English and American Judges as Lawmakers (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969).Google Scholar

61 Goldsmith and Banks, for example, have argued that by 1979 the US Supreme Court had gutted the liberal interpretations of the NEPA provided by earlier decisions in the lower Courts. See Goldsmith, Richard I. and Banks, William C., “Environmental Values: Institutional Responsibility and the Supreme Court,” Harvard Environmental Law Review 7 (1983), 1–40Google Scholar. Kovacic has argued that Bush appointees have now somewhat reversed this trend. See Kovacic, William E., “The Reagan Judiciary and Environmental Policy: The Impact of Appointments to the Federal Courts of Appeals,” Environmental Affairs 18 (1991), 669–713.Google Scholar

62 Henderson, Edith G., Foundations of English Administrative Law: Certiorari and Mandamus in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), 25–35, 46–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63 de Smith, S. A., Judicial Review of Administrative Action (London: Stevens and Sons, 1973), esp. Appendix I.Google Scholar

64 On Canadian remedies, see Kernaghan, Kenneth, “Judicial Review of Administration Action,” in Kernaghan, Kenneth, ed., Public Administration in Canada: Selected Readings (Toronto: Methuen, 1985), 358–73Google Scholar. On the US, see Davis, Kenneth Gulp, Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1969).Google Scholar

65 Wade, H. W. R., “Anglo-American Administrative Law: More Reflections,” Law Quarterly Review 82 (1966), 226–52.Google Scholar

66 See Jaffe, Louis L., Judicial Control of Administrative Action (Boston: Little Brown, 1965).Google Scholar

67 See Anderson, , NEPA in the CourtsGoogle Scholar; and Glicksman, Elliot B., “Judicialization of the Administrative Process: Adversarial Risks for Fairness,” South Carolina Law Review 42 (1991), 345–78Google Scholar. The very broad powers assumed by the courts under the substantial evidence doctrine has drawn criticism from some observers who wish the political role of US courts was made more obvious. See, for example, Edley, Christopher F. Jr., Administrative Law: Rethinking Judicial Control of Bureaucracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

68 Anderson, , NEPA in the Courts, 15.Google Scholar

69 On Canadian developments in the 1960s and 1970s, see Abel, Albert S., “Appeals against Administrative Decisions III: In Search of a Basic Policy,” Canadian Public Administration 5 (1962), 65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lawford, H. J., “Appeals against Administrative Decisions I. The Function of Judicial Review,” Canadian Public Administration 5 (1962), 46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Angus, William H., “Judicial Review: Do We Need It?,” in Baum, Daniel J., ed., The Individual and the Bureaucracy (Toronto: Carswell, 1974), 101–35.Google Scholar

70 On current Canadian practice see Dussault, R. and Borgeat, L., Administrative Law: A Treatise (Toronto: Carswell, 1990)Google Scholar; and Finkelstein, N. and Rogers, W., eds., Recent Developments in Administrative Law (Toronto: Carswell, 1987).Google Scholar

71 Hogg, P. W., “The Supreme Court of Canada and Administrative Law, 1949–1971,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 11(1973), 187–223.Google Scholar

72 Lucas, , “Judicial Review of the Environmental Assessment Process,” 47.Google Scholar

73 Glenn, John E. and Knopff, Rainer, “The Rule of Law vs. Executive Discretion in Canadian Environmental Assessment Litigation,”Google Scholar paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Ottawa, 1993.

74 See White, G. Edward, “The Path of American Jurisprudence,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 124 (1976), 1212–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Dickinson, John, Administrative Justice and the Supremacy of Law in the United States (New York: Russell and Russell, 1927).Google Scholar

75 Interestingly, this strategy was endorsed by one of the earliest reviews of Canadian environmental legislation. See Thompson, Andrew R., Environmental Regulation in Canada: An Assessment of the Regulatory Process (Vancouver: Westwater Research Centre, 1980).Google Scholar

76 Bennett, , “What Is Policy Convergence?”Google Scholar

77 This insight, of course, is not new to Canada-US comparisons. See Schwartz, Mildred A., “American Influences on the Conduct of Canadian Politics,” in Preston, Richard A., ed., The Influence of the United States on Canadian Development: Eleven Case Studies (Durham: Duke University Press, 1972), 99–112Google Scholar; and Schwartz, Mildred A., The Environment for Policy-Making in Canada and the United States (Toronto: C. D. Howe Institute, 1981)Google Scholar. A recent analysis of judicial activism in Canadian and American environmental policy-making makes much the same point: see Knopff, Rainer, Holland, Kenneth and Glenn, John, “Judicial Activism and the Environment in North America,”Google Scholar paper presented to the annual meeting of the Association for Canadian Studies of Australia and New Zealand, Wellington, 1992.