¹ R. MacGregor Dawson (Toronto, 1947). All references in this article are to the fifth edition published in 1970 and revised by Norman Ward, hereafter cited as Dawson and Ward.

² (Toronto, 1971), hereafter cited as Mallory.

³ (Toronto, 1971), hereafter cited as Van Loon and Whittington.

⁴ Verney's, Douglas summary is apt: “Professor Mallory does not attempt to break new ground comparatively or conceptually: like Dawson he takes as his starting point the Anglo-Canadian tradition of Monarch, Governor-General, cabinet government and parliamentary sovereignty suitably modified by the federal structure adopted by the framers of the British North America Act in 1867.” Review, American Political Science Review, LXVI (1972), 1067.Google Scholar

⁵ Van Loon and Whittington, preface.

⁶ Keirstead, Burton S. and Watkins, Frederick M., “Political Science in Canada,” in UNESCO, Contemporary Political Science: A Survey of Methods, Research and Training (Paris, 1950), 174.Google Scholar

⁷ Toronto, 1944.

⁸ Toronto, 1946.

⁹ Toronto, 1947.

¹⁰ Review, Canadian Historical Review, 29 (1948), 69.

¹¹ Many of the comments in this and the following paragraph are echoed in Meisel's, John review of the fourth edition in Journal of Commonwealth Political Studies, III (1965), 155–6.Google Scholar

¹² Verney, Douglas stated in 1964 that even when first written “Dawson's book… was a pre-war style text for a post-war world, and despite the revised editions of 1954 and 1957 it remained a monumental tribute to an earlier era.” Review, “Government without Politics,” Canadian Forum, 44 (1964), 18.Google Scholar

In his 1965 review of the fourth edition John Meisel anticipated “a great flowering of Canadian political science and with it, a great proliferation and improvement in the available text books.” He asserted that “it is almost certain that this very fine book is the last of its kind to emerge from the typewriters of Canadian scholars.” He somewhat prematurely concluded, “while we recognise and even welcome its passing, we nevertheless marvel at the greatness of its achievement.” Journal of Commonwealth Political Studies, III (1965), 156.

In the early fifties there was a similar reaction in the United States to the dominance of Ogg, F.A. and Ray, P.O., Introduction to American Government (1st ed., New York, 1922)Google Scholar, with its “seemingly excessive emphasis on formalisms and detail.” Carey, George, “Introductory Textbooks to American Government,” The Political Science Reviewer, 1 (1971), 155.Google Scholar

¹³ Dawson and Ward, viii.

¹⁴ Two recent attempts to examine the state and nature of American political science through an examination of introductory texts are Isaak, Alan C., “The Grassroots of a Discipline: A Review of Some Introductory Texts in Political Science,” American Political Science Review, LXVI (1972), 1336–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Carey, “Introductory Textbooks.”

A revealing indication of cultural differences in attitudes to texts is evident in Pear's, R.H. review article, “The Great American Textbook,” Parliamentary Affairs, XVII (1964)Google Scholar, which notes the proselytizing purposes of American texts in contrast to the British approach. “A speaker who talks about the ‘British way of Life’ will, if he is not careful, raise a giggle before he has gone very far,” 220.

¹⁵ Wilson, G.E., “Robert MacGregor Dawson, 1895–1958,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, XXV (1959), 210.Google Scholar He wrote the Report of the Nova Scotia Royal Commission on Provincial Development and Rehabilitation, two vols. (Halifax, N.S., 1944), and he also had extensive prairie experience as head of the University of Saskatchewan political science department from 1928 to 1937.

¹⁶ Dawson and Ward, v. The failure to cover provincial or local government was described as an “important shortcoming” in Munro's, William B. review of the first edition: American Political Science Review, 42 (1948), 583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷ Dawson and Ward, 58.

¹⁸ Mallory, 29. There are, however, “extremely wide variations in the character of the politics of different provinces…,” 31.

¹⁹ Van Loon and Whittington, 493–4.

²⁰ See Cairns, Alan C., “The Study of the Provinces: A Review Article,” B.C. Studies, no. 14 (Summer, 1972), 73–6Google Scholar, for a discussion of this centralist bias.

²¹ Trudeau, P.E., “The Practice and Theory of Federalism,” Social Purpose for Canada, ed. Oliver, Michael (Toronto, 1961)Google Scholar is the classic indictment of the former ccf left for its centralist antipathy to federalism. Various contemporary Canadian left-wing thinkers, by contrast, display positive support for various forms of decentralization. See Hodgins, Bruce, “Nationalism, Decentralism and the Left,” Canadian Forum (April, 1972)Google Scholar; Levitt, Kari, “Towards Decolonization: Canada and Quebec,” Canadian Forum (March, 1972)Google Scholar; and Taylor, Charles, The Pattern of Politics (Toronto, 1970), 116–23.Google Scholar

²² Canadian Provincial Politics: The Party System of the Ten Provinces, ed. Robin, Martin (Scarborough, 1972)Google Scholar helps to fill one important gap in provincial studies.

²³ John Wilson makes this point with respect to Loon, Van and Whittington, . Review, Canadian Public Administration, 15 (1972), 400.Google Scholar

²⁴ A weakness partially overcome by the fact that none of the three texts completely maintains its national focus in discussion of the parties. This relative willingness to depart from a restrictive central-government focus probably reflects four factors: (1) the pronounced interest of political scientists in third parties, which have been stronger at the provincial level; (2) the generally good literature on third parties in the provinces; (3) recognition, or assumption of important links between parties at the two levels; (4) recognition that federal provincial conflict cannot be understood without including provincial parties.

²⁵ Van Loon and Whittington, 271.

²⁶ Three articles by Bonenfant, Jean-Charles describe French-Canadian attitudes. “Les Canadiens français et la naissance de la Con-fédération,” Canadian Historical Association, Report (1952)Google Scholar; “L'Idée que les Canadiens français de 1864 pouvaient avoir du fédéralisme,” Culture, 25 (1964), and The French Canadians and the Birth of Confederation (Ottawa, 1966).

²⁷ Van Loon and Whittington, 280. On p. 85 the phrase “most important political problems” (underlining added) is used with the same percentages, 57 and 24. It is not clear from the text which wording is correct, or whether both are.

²⁸ Le Système politique du Canada: institutions fédérates et québécoises, ed. Sabourin, Louis (Ottawa, 1968).Google ScholarBonenfant, Jean-Charles, Les Institutions politiques canadiennes (Québec, 1954)Google Scholar, an older elementary French text, contains one chapter on provincial legislatures, one on the Legislative Council in Quebec, and one on municipal institutions.

²⁹ Van Loon and Whittington, 243, 253, 356; Mallory, 302.

³⁰ The present generation of Anglophone academics inherits a lengthy tradition well described by Mallory. For most of the first 100 years of Canadian history “even the most liberal” English-speaking Canadians, he wrote, “… regarded French Canada as little more than a transitory source of trouble and discomfort which, in the long run, would somehow be solved by the ultimate penetration of the forces of ‘progress’ into Quebec. Meanwhile it was best to let sleeping dogs lie.” Mallory, 395.

³¹ Smiley, Donald V., “Contributions to Canadian Political Science since the Second World War,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, XXXIII (1967), 573.Google Scholar

³² Mallory, for example, has an excellent concluding section on the ethnic political crisis of the past decade, 393–404, and on “The Public Service in a Bicultural Community,” 175–9. Van Loon and Whittington include a helpful discussion of the French-English cleavage, 47–64.

³³ In his preface to the fourth edition in 1963 Ward noted that a reading of “almost the whole of the earlier text” would have failed to provide understanding of the French-speaking third of the country and the political importance of the French fact. It was “an English-Canadian version of Canadian government, and while I cannot pretend to have made it any less so, I have where possible amended the text to include references to the rest of us,” vii–viii.

³⁴ See Lazure, Jacques, La Jeunesse du Québec en révolution: essai d'interprétation (Montréal, 1971)Google Scholar, esp. chap. 11.

³⁵ When authors “forget” their ethnic background, they run the risk of being taken to task by ethnic patriots. Maurice Lamontagne, author of Le Fédéralisme canadien (Québec, 1954), a book which did not dwell on the particularism of Quebec, was criticized by Brunet, Michel in the following revealing manner: “Le plus grave reproche qu'un critique canadien-français puisse addresser à M. Lamontagne c'est d'avoir systématiquement oublié qu'il est un Canadien français du Québec.” Canadians et Canadiens (Montreal, 1954), 162.Google Scholar

³⁶ Corry, J.A., “Constitutional Trends and Federalism,” in Lower, A.R.M., et al., Evolving Canadian Federalism (Durham, N.C., 1958), 95.Google Scholar

³⁷ Federal-Provincial Diplomacy: The Making of Recent Policy in Canada (Toronto, 1972), 185, italics in original. See also Van Loon and Whittington, 166.

³⁸ Van Loon and Whittington, 166–7, 391–2, 407.

³⁹ Simeon, Federal-Provincial Diplomacy, 269.

⁴⁰ Mallory, 386–93; Van Loon and Whittington, 222–8. In Dawson and Ward this focus is mainly found in the chapter on dominion-provincial financial relations.

⁴¹ Simeon, Federal-Provincial Diplomacy, vii.

⁴² The literature pertaining to the authors and subjects cited in this paragraph is listed in the excellent federalism bibliography in Canadian Federalism: Myth or Reality, ed. Meekison, J. Peter (2nd ed., Toronto, 1971)Google Scholar, with the exception of Veilleux, Gérard, Les relations intergouvernementales an Canada, 1867–1967: les mécanismes de coopération (Montréal, 1971)Google Scholar, and Simeon, Federal-Provincial Diplomacy.

⁴³ One of the most successful syntheses in the existing literature is Mallory's, James R. case study Social Credit and the Federal Power in Canada (Toronto, 1954).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See The Structures of Policy-Making in Canada, ed. Doern, G. Bruce and Aucoin, Peter (Toronto, 1971)Google Scholar, introduction. This failing is not confined to Canada. For a general discussion, which notes the recent emergence of a strong interest in policy and output studies by political scientists, see Heclo, H. Hugh, “Review Article: Policy Analysis,” British Journal of Political Science, 2 (1972).Google Scholar There is some evidence of a growing Canadian interest in output, particularly by political scientists at the University of Toronto who have produced several important policy studies in recent years.

⁴⁵ “Contributions,” 569.

⁴⁶ “The State and Economic Life,” Canada, ed. Brown, George W. (Toronto, 1950)Google Scholar; “The Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, II (1936); “Economic Activity of the State in the British Dominions,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, v (1939); and his major work Democracy in the Dominions.

⁴⁷ See Canadian Issues: Essays in Honour of Henry F. Angus, ed. Clark, Robert M. (Toronto, 1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a bibliography of the writings of Angus.

⁴⁸ The Growth of Government Activities since Confederation (Ottawa, 1939); “Changes in the Functions of Government,” Canadian Historical Association, Report (1945).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ “The Fusion of Government and Business,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, ii (1936).

⁵⁰ “The Prospects for the Rule of Law,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, XXI (1955); and more recently The Changing Conditions of Politics (Toronto, 1963).

⁵¹ The Unreformed Senate of Canada (London, 1926; rev. ed., Toronto. 1963).

⁵² Newfoundland: Economic, Diplomatic and Strategic Studies (Toronto, 1946).

⁵³ Toronto, 1969.

⁵⁴ Dolbeare, Kenneth M., “Public Policy Analysis and the Coming Struggle for the Soul of the Postbehavioral Revolution,” Power and Community: Dissenting Essays in Political Science, ed. Green, Philip and Levinson, Sanford (New York, 1970), 93.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ A temporary exception was the depression-born League for Social Reconstruction. See Horn, Michiel, “The League for Social Reconstruction and the development of a Canadian socialism, 1932–1936,” Journal of Canadian Studies, VII (1972)Google Scholar, and his unpublished ph d thesis “The League for Social Reconstruction: Socialism and Nationalism in Canada, 1931–1945,” University of Toronto, 1969. A number of academic groups, largely Toronto-based, have made various attempts to fill the gap, particularly the University League for Social Reform and the more radical breakaway group spec (Studies in the Political Economy of Canada) whose first publication edited by Teeple, Gary has just appeared, Capitalism and the National Question in Canada (Toronto, 1972).Google Scholar There has also been a noticable growth in radical periodicals in recent years to supplement the venerable Canadian Forum, particularly Our Generation (commenced 1961 with the title of Our Generation against Nuclear War), Canadian Dimension (commenced 1963), and Last Post (commenced 1969). The rise and fall of radical French-Canadian periodicals is outside the scope of a footnote.

⁵⁶ Income Distribution and Social Change (London, 1962); Essays on ‘The Welfare State’ (2nd ed., London, 1963); Commitment to Welfare (New York, 1968); The Gift Relationship: from Human Blood to Social Policy (London, 1970).

⁵⁷ For one exception see Splane, Richard B., Social Welfare in Ontario 1791–1893: A Study of Public Welfare Administration (Toronto, 1965).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ (Chicago, 1960). However, we have had a strong attack on Hayek's limited state by Christian Bay, now of the University of Toronto. See his “Hayek's Liberalism: The Constitution of Perpetual Privilege,” The Political Science Reviewer, 1 (1971).

⁵⁹ Bird, Richard M., The Growth of Government Spending in Canada, Canadian Tax Papers, no. 51 (Toronto, 1970)Google Scholar is an indispensable basic source in this field of research in Canada.

⁶⁰ Review of Lindblom, Charles E., The Policy-Making Process (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1968)Google Scholar, Canadian Journal of Political Science, IV (1971), 295.

⁶¹ Dawson and Ward, 265.

⁶² Ibid., xi–xii.

⁶³ Mallory, xi.

⁶⁴ Ibid., xi.

⁶⁵ Ibid., 359. The Canadian constitution, Mallory observes, “is a product of negotiation and bargaining, of a feeling that practical operation is more important than the letter of the law, and that the spirit supersedes the letter of the agreement.” Thus “our constitutional law [is] harder to discover and apply than the American, for it shares the ambiguities of the British constitution,” 2.

⁶⁶ Dawson and Ward, 58–60.

⁶⁷ Review, Canadian Historical Review, 29 (1948), 69. See however n. 96 below for the criticism of Jennings.

⁶⁸ Mallory, 225–8.

⁶⁹ Dawson and Ward, 344–8; Mallory, 219–22.

⁷⁰ Mallory, 17–18, 48–54. For the discretionary role of the governor general in selecting a prime minister, see Mallory, 45–8, 71–5, and Dawson and Ward, 153–4. The general reserve power of the governor general to deal with serious threats to the constitution is discussed in Dawson and Ward, 161–3.

⁷¹ Mallory, 328; Dawson and Ward, 216–17.

⁷² Dawson and Ward, 153. See also 157–8, and in general chap. 8. See, however, 279, for circumstances in which the position of the governor general might disappear. Although Mallory defends the monarchy, he notes that its impact is divisive as well as unifying, and that republican sentiments are powerful in Quebec, 40–1, 399.

⁷³ Dawson and Ward, 300.

⁷⁴ Ibid., 279, 303.

⁷⁵ Mallory, 234–41.

⁷⁶ Dawson and Ward, 168.

⁷⁷ Mallory, 109.

⁷⁸ Van Loon and Whittington, 412n.

⁷⁹ Ibid., preface.

⁸⁰ Ibid., 279. Mallory, 202, also employs institutional differences to explain Canadian third parties.

⁸¹ Van Loon and Whittington, 293–5, 313–14. For addition speculation on the effect of “government structure on group activity,” see 316–17.

⁸² Van Loon and Whittington, 288. See also 130–1 re the figurehead status of the governor general. Wilson, John suggests that their inadequate treatment of “the reserve power of the crown” may reflect the weakness of “a narrow application of the system approach [which] probably cannot cope with the idea of an ultimate reserve power on the part of the head of state, for it appears to put his function outside the system.” Review, Canadian Public Administration, 15 (1972), 398.Google Scholar

⁸³ They are wrong, however, in their statement that the Senate cannot amend money bills and does not attempt to do so, 481. For the correct position see Dawson and Ward, 295–6.

⁸⁴ Van Loon and Whittington, 480–3.

⁸⁵ Ibid., 354, 482.

⁸⁶ Ibid., 464–5.

⁸⁷ Ibid., 369n.

⁸⁸ Ibid., 107.

⁸⁹ Ibid., 369; see also 495.

⁹⁰ Ibid., 447.

⁹¹ Ibid., 89–92. Elsewhere, however, we are told that increasing government complexity produces “a decline in the ability of the individual to understand current political issues,” 331. This is followed by a discussion of the dangers of citizens combining feelings of efficacy with ignorance, 332–3.

Is the stress of contemporary political science, particularly in the United States, on measuring feelings of citizen efficacy related to American populist values? Does (should) the concept of the good citizen have the same meaning in different political systems? Does parliamentary government make a difference to the model of good citizen behaviour? Perhaps the appropriate feeling is not efficacy, which for an individual is probably a delusion anyway, but a resigned willingness to do one's duty as a citizen even if satisfying results are unlikely to be forthcoming.

⁹² Representative examples of Canadian political-science literature examining the impact of institutions on behaviour include the following: Lederman, W.R., “Some Forms and Limitations of Co-Operative Federalism,” Canadian Bar Review, XLV (1967)Google Scholar discusses the significance of the bna Act for cooperative federalism, and refutes the suggestion that the constitutional text is a meaningless facade. Lipset, S.M., “Democracy in Alberta,” Canadian Forum, XXXIV (1954–1955), 175–7, 196–8Google Scholar, suggests that the rise of third parties is a result of the restraints of party discipline in a parliamentary system which does not allow the regional political diversities of a federal society to express themselves effectively within the major parties. Kornberg, Allan, “Caucus and Cohesion in Canadian Parliamentary Parties,” American Political Science Review, LX (1966)Google Scholar establishes the thesis “that the presence of a British Parliamentary system is of crucial importance in making Canadian parliamentary parties more cohesive than American Congressional parties,” 91.

Three articles discuss the impact of the electoral system on the party system in Canada. Cairns, Alan C., “The Electoral System and the Party System in Canada, 1921–1965,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lovink, J.A.A., “On Analysing the Impact of the Electoral System on the Party System in Canada,” and reply by Cairns, both in Canadian Journal of Political Science, III (1970).Google Scholar

J.E. Hodgetts recently denied that the institutional approach was passé: “I would contend that we are only at the beginning of a lengthy programme in which, casting aside the antiquarian interests we have shared with the historian but using their findings, we move forward to contemporary critical assessments of our institutions.” “Canadian Political Science: A Hybrid with a Future?” Scholarship in Canada, 1967: Achievement and Outlook, ed. Hubbard, R.H. (Toronto, 1968), 103.Google Scholar

Even Van Loon and Whittington are moved to lament in their postscript that the behavioural revolution, by reducing the attention paid to the constitution and the formal structures of government, has had the effect that our knowledge “in this area is quickly becoming dated. What was once a strength in Canadian political science may soon become a weakness,” 493.

⁹³ Mallory, 326n.

⁹⁴ See below, p. 122–4.

⁹⁵ Dawson and Ward, 3.

⁹⁶ In a review of the first edition of Dawson, Ivor Jennings stated: “It is I think significant that some of the best books on government were written by foreigners – Bryce on the United States and Lowell and Ogg on the United Kingdom. Bryce above all showed the intimate relations between government and its social context but we had not learned the lesson… The political scientist must take the whole of knowledge for his province. I would therefore suggest that a book on the Government of Canada should tell us a little about the people of Canada, their social relationships, economic organization, history, and geographical influences. Is Canada a string of beads strung on railroads? Does it contain five or six economic areas artificially separated from the similar areas across the line? Who are these French Canadians and where and how do they live? Is there anything left of the United Empire Loyalist tradition? Why do the Maritimes complain of Confederation? There must be a hundred such questions.” Review, Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, XIV (1948), 392–3.

“Dawson's idea of the boundaries of the Canadian political system,” observed Smiley, “was drawn at parties and did not include voters, interest groups, agencies of political socialization, and what in general today would be called ‘political culture.’” “Contributions,” 570.

⁹⁷ Dawson and Ward, 414; Mallory, 203–4.

⁹⁸ Mallory's discussion of political parties, however (194–204), makes various observations about society and culture that partially exempt his work from the above observation.

⁹⁹ Van Loon and Whittington, 47, 253–4, 262–3, 348.

¹⁰⁰ Mallory, 305, in a quote from Frank Scott.

¹⁰¹ Smith, Joel and Kornberg, Allan, “Some Considerations bearing upon Comparative Research in Canada and the United States,” Sociology, 33 (1969)Google Scholar is a valuable comparison of the different political role of ethnicity in Canada and the United States. They note that, with the exception of its French–English aspects, ethnic politics has been much less visible in Canada. Possibly for this reason it has been little examined. The absence of attention to ethnic issues may reflect the wasp composition of the Canadian social-science community, and/or the late development of sociology as a discipline, and of “race relations” as an important subdiscipline.

Helpful comments on the present state of ethnic studies which, partly under government sponsorship, are experiencing a mild boom are contained in Gregorovich, Andrew, Canadian Ethnic Groups Bibliography (Toronto, 1972)Google Scholar, preface. Canadian Ethnic Studies (1969–) a bulletin published by The Research Centre for Canadian Ethnic Studies of the University of Calgary is an important new source of information. Peterson's, T. “Ethnic and Class Politics in Manitoba,” Canadian Provincial Politics, ed. Robin, Martin (Scarborough, 1972)Google Scholar, is a valuable recent study stressing ethnic factors.

¹⁰² Mallory, 28–29; Dawson and Ward, 26.

¹⁰³ Dawson and Ward, 179–85; Mallory, 82–4, 96–7. See also Van Loon and Whittington, 346–50.

¹⁰⁴ Mallory, 175–9, 393–404.

¹⁰⁵ See his excellent discussion of judicial review, 335–55, and his chapter on the courts

¹⁰⁶ For good examples see Mallory, 40, 196, 211–12, 305, 321, and Dawson and Ward, 72–3.

¹⁰⁷ Greenstein, Fred I., “The Impact of Personality on Politics: An Attempt to Clear Away Underbrush,” American Political Science Review, LXI (1967)Google Scholar, is useful in identifying situations where political behavior is predictable for institutional or other reasons, versus those in which personality variables may be important.

¹⁰⁸ Even in times of crisis, however, institutions continue to have an important effect. Simeon shows that the search for a new constitution, one response to the recent French–English crisis of federalism, was much affected by the fact that the official searchers were representatives of governments who met in the particular institutional context of the federal-provincial conference (Federal-Provincial Diplomacy). Crises call institutions into action, and the particular institutions available affect the way the crisis is handled.

¹⁰⁹ Van Loon and Whittington, preface.

¹¹⁰ Ibid., 9–10.

¹¹¹ Ibid., 47–64.

¹¹² Ibid., 65.

¹¹³ Ibid., 9.

¹¹⁴ See Potter, David M., People of Plenty: Economic Abundance and the American Character (Chicago, 1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹⁵ Fifth Annual Review: The Challenge of Growth and Change (Ottawa, 1968), chap. 6.

¹¹⁶ The first use of this percentage refers to “fully 40 per cent of Canadians” as “below at least a ‘discomfort’ line.” Van Loon and Whittington, 42. The 40 per cent figure is subsequently used in various contexts for the poor, the unorganized, the inarticulate, the non-participants, and those with a “subject” orientation, 44, 72, 93, 321, 364.

¹¹⁷ Ibid., 64

¹¹⁸ Review of The Canadian Political System in Canadian Journal of Political Science, V (1972), 320.

¹¹⁹ Brady, A. asserts that from the constitutional act of 1791 to the present “the continuity in development… has been virtually uninterrupted.” “Canada and the Model of Westminster,” The Transfer of Institutions, ed. Hamilton, William B. (Durham, N.C., 1964), 79–80.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Mallory, 2.

¹²¹ Ibid., 108

¹²² Ibid., xi.

¹²³ Dawson and Ward, 3.

¹²⁴ Ibid., 4.

¹²⁵ Ibid., 99.

¹²⁶ Ibid., 61n.

¹²⁷ Creighton, Donald, Towards the Discovery of Canada (Toronto, 1972), 50.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Ibid., 50.

¹²⁹ G.E. Wilson, “Robert MacGregor Dawson,” 211. In his review of the first edition Scott, Frank suggested that the book displayed “traces of a colonial concern about the marvellous disappearance of colonialism.” International Journal, III (1948), 167.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ A bibliography of Dawson's publications is appended to G.E. Wilson's obituary notice “Robert MacGregor Dawson,” 212–13. Ward's, historical orientation is evident in his books The Canadian House of Commons: Representation (Toronto, 1950)Google Scholar, and The Public Purse: A Study in Canadian Democracy (Toronto, 1962). Mallory's historical orientation is evident in his Social Credit and the Federal Power.

¹³¹ Van Loon and Whittington, 492. For references to the ubiquity of political-system change over time, and recognition of the danger of “drawing a static mechanical picture” see 6, 491.

¹³² The inadequate economic position of French Canadians is explained by a historical interpretation, 54–5. They provide a historical description of French-English crises in Canada, 55–63, present a standard treatment of the historical background to confederation, 167–72, include a detailed chronological treatment of the impact of the Judicial Committee on Canadian federalism, 181–92, and of federal-provincial finances from 1867 (largely derived from the Rowell Sirois report), 192–205. Their treatment of parties has a large historical component because the structural features of the parties and their bases of support have been much influenced by history, 254. Accordingly, chapter 11 deals with parties from a historical perspective.

¹³³ Ibid., 32–8.

¹³⁴ Ibid., 38–47.

¹³⁵ Ibid., 20–30.

¹³⁶ Ibid., 21. In a footnote on the same page they note changes in trade patterns back to 1964.

¹³⁷ Import-export data for previous years, indicating a much less heavy dependence on the United States, is contained in Canada One Hundred 1867–1967 (Ottawa, 1967), 260–1.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ See also Wilson's, John comments, Review, Canadian Public Administration 15 (1972), 399.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Even in anthropological studies, where historical data is less easy to obtain and where political systems and environments are relatively stable, the necessity of employing history has been vigorously argued. See Evans-Pritchard, E.E., “Social Anthropology: Past and Present,” and “Anthropology and History,” in his Social Anthropology and Other Essays (New York, 1964).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ S.D. Clark has long argued the need for combining theory and history in the explanation of Canadian society. See “Part iv: Sociology and History,” in his The Developing Canadian Community (2nd ed., Toronto, 1968).

¹⁴¹ The Semisovereign People (New York, 1961), 71. Italics in original.

¹⁴² I have the impression that students of Canadian federalism are far less prone to make comparisons with American federalism, than students of parliamentary government are to make comparisons with British parliamentary government. Where comparisons do occur they usually describe the Canadian as the superior variant of federalism. American federalism is not the mother of Canadian federalism. In local government, where there has been less British influence and extensive importation of American practices, there is a much greater tendency to make American comparisons. See Munro, W.B., American Influences on Canadian Government (Toronto, 1929)Google Scholar, chap, III, “City Government in Canada.”

The kinds of comparisons and contrasts employed by French-Canadian scholars merit investigation. The recent publication of Benjamin, Jacques, Les Camerounais occidentaux: La minorité dans un Elat bicommunauiaire (Montreal, 1972)Google Scholar is a discussion of an African example of federalism to which the author was attracted “instinctivement” as a Quebecois (p.l). See also his article “La minorité en Etat bicommunautaire: quatre études de cas,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, IV (1971) comparing Cameroon, Mauritius, Cyprus, and Lebanon. Several of the recent publications of Jacques Yvan Morin have drawn on federal examples little used by Anglophone scholars, from which he derives conclusions hostile to the existing Canadian federal system. For one of many possible examples see “Le Québec et l'Arbitrage Constitutionnel: De Charybde en Scylla,” Canadian Bar Review, XLV (1967). Brossard, Jacques, La Cour Suprême et la Constitution (Montreal, 1968)Google Scholar includes a variety of comparative examples, such as Italy, Turkey, Venezuela, and Germany unlikely to be included in Anglophone comparative studies of institutions. The brilliant comparative study of Watts, R.L., New Federations: Experiments in the Commonwealth (London, 1966)Google Scholar, confines itself, as its title indicates, to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has been of negligible interest to French-Canadian scholars.

¹⁴³ It is not French either. The language of parliamentary government links Canada to Britain, and thus stresses the British nature of the Canadian polity, as the French fact has had a less visible impact on the form of Canadian government institutions.

¹¹⁴ The focus on parliamentary government also leads to comparisons with the other political systems of the Empire-Commonwealth endowed with similar British institutions. Mallory's chapter on the “formal executive,” for example, not only has many comparisons with the United Kingdom, but also draws on Australian and South African experience. See also Brady, Democracy in the Dominions, and Forsey, Eugene A., The Royal Power of Dissolution of Parliament in the British Commonwealth (Toronto, 1968)Google Scholar, for two important comparative studies in this vein.

¹⁴⁵ The significance of responsible government is eloquently described by Brady. “The consequences of the triumph of responsible government are many, but one commands particular attention. Canadians could henceforth feel confident that the essential fabric of the British constitution was their own acquisition, secured through their persistent advocacy, fitted to their peculiar circumstances, and fostered as the substance and symbol of their political identity in North America.” “Canada and the Model of Westminster,” 67–8.

¹⁴⁶ See Dawson and Ward, 36. The Canadian leaders, according to Brady, sought “not merely the external forms of the British system, but what they interpreted as its inner and pervasive spirit: the sense of continuity, the capacity for slow and secure change, and the protection of minority rights and social diversities. To these qualities Macdonald and Cartier in particular were as devoted as any nineteenth century British Whigs,” “Canada and the Model of Westminister,” 69. See also Careless, Maurice, “Mid-Victorian Liberalism in Central Canadian Newspapers, 1850–67,” Canadian Historical Review, XXXI (1950)Google Scholar, for the overwhelming dominance of British models in discussions of political and other subjects in the Toronto press in the pre-confederation period.

¹⁴⁷ Mallory, 332–3; Van Loon and Whittington, 167–8; Dawson and Ward, 37.

¹⁴⁸ In which ways would academic evaluations of the Canadian party system have been different if the two major parties had been called Republican and Democratic? Curiously, the Canadian party closest to its British counterpart, the ccf, did not assume a British name. The significance of labels and the comparisons they elicit or inhibit is a little examined area. See, however, Laponce, J.A., “Canadian Party Labels: An Essay in Semantics and Anthropology,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, II (1969).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ Van Loon and Whittington, 21–3.

¹⁵⁰ McNaught, Kenneth, The Pelican History of Canada (Harmondsworth, England, 1969), 213Google Scholar, asserts that more than 60,000 Canadians were killed in action, “some 12,000 more than those similarly lost by the United States.” Unfortunately, completely precise comparisons cannot be made with confidence as different sources quote different figures, especially of American military fatalities. However, all sources agree that the Canadian war dead were proportionately much greater than American.

¹⁵¹ Most of the Pacific links of Canada are legacies of Empire. With the recent exception of strong trade links with Japan, they have been with the old white dominions of Australia and New Zealand and the new Commonwealth countries of Asia. Holmes, John W., The Better Part of Valour: Essays on Canadian Diplomacy (Toronto, 1970), 161–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵² Munro, American Influences on Canadian Government, is an early indication of the usefulness of looking at the North American environment and the specific impact of American models on the practice of Canadian politics.

¹⁵³ Dawson and Ward, 344. This was added by Ward in the fourth edition.

¹⁵⁴ For exceptions see Dawson and Ward, 431, 436–7, 452–3, 466–7, 476. Several observers have made similar criticisms. In his review of the first edition of The Government of Canada, W.B. Munro suggested that more contrasts and comparisons with the American party system would have been helpful. “The similarities are greater than most students of comparative government realize.” American Political Science Review, 42 (1948), 583. In his own chapter “Party Organization and Practical Politics” written in 1929 Munro had effectively called attention to American influences on the Canadian party system, and the similarities of practice born of the similar problems they both faced. American Influences on Canadian Government.

In his extensive review of the first edition F.W. Gibson observed that “Professor Dwason concentrates on an intensive analysis of the machinery of government and avoids much discussion of the ultimate purposes for which the machinery is designed or of the distinctively Canadian social context within which it operates.” The parties, he continued, “function within a specific social context the character of which is largely determined by the dynamic pattern of conflict and community of interest among its component groups… It is this social context that gives meaning to an analysis of political parties…” Professor Dawson, “does not illuminate fully the character of the dominant groups in the community, or the nature of their quarrels, or the methods employed by the party leaders to resolve them.” Queen's Quarterly, 57 (1950–1951), 480, 492–3.Google Scholar

Ward himself noted in his preface to the fourth edition that part of Dawson's “chapters on political parties paid more attention to the democratic facades which the parties present than seemed realistic in the light of the parties’ actual roles in Canadian society,” viii.

¹⁵⁵ Mallory, in a much shorter section on parties than that of Dawson and Ward, has about the same number of references to American practices: 194, 196, 197, 201, 202, 204, 206; see also 282. Van Loon and Whittington, in a considerably longer section than Mallory, employ a roughly equal number of American references, contrasts, and comparisons: 231, 239, 240, 275, 283–4. Van Loon and Whittington are more prone to refer to American writers, Mallory and Dawson and Ward to American practices.

¹⁵⁶ Dobell, Peter C., Canada's Search for New Roles (Toronto, 1972), 81–2.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ The Canadian situation is simply the indigenous variant of the “worldwide blurring of the boundaries betwen national and international systems” which requires the development of linkage theory to examine the resultant interdependence. See Rosenau, James N., “Introduction: Political Science in a Shrinking World,” Linkage Politics: Essays on the Convergence of National and International Systems, ed. Rosenau, James N. (New York, 1969)Google Scholar, and other essays in the same volume.

Part of the difficulty in generating an effective academic response to this interdependence resides in a division of labour with little overlapping of interest or research between students of domestic and international politics.

Stephen Clarkson's reminder of the almost total social-science neglect of Canadian-American relations indicates how much remains to be done, “Lament for a non-subject: reflections on teaching Canadian-American relations,” International Journal, XXVII (1972).

¹⁵⁸ The evolution of the Canadian position in the North Atlantic triangle has multiple strands. John Meisel has recently suggested that the much-touted Liberal pride and arrogance may partly reflect the educational links with the United Kingdom of those leading public servants, academics, and Liberal politicians who were influential in the period 1935–53 when the Liberal “style” congealed, and who were imbued with a complacent elitism by their sojourn. He goes on to suggest: “The elites may be more receptive to British and French traditions and trends, whereas the mass public may respond much more strongly to United States influences.” “Howe, Hubris and 72: An Essay on Political Elitism,” in Meisel, John, Working Papers on Canadian Politics (enlarged edn., Montreal/London, 1973), 236–7, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵⁹ Clarkson, “Lament for a non-subject,” 270.

¹⁶⁰ Laponce, J.A., People vs Politics (Toronto, 1969), 164.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Mallory, 110, 116, 137–49; Dawson and Ward, 231–2, 235–7, 269–70, 272–5.

¹⁶² Dawson and Ward, 304. Elsewhere they describe the House of Commons as “the great democratic agency in the government of Canada: the ‘grand inquest of the nation'; the organized medium through which the public will finds expression and exercises its ultimate political power. It forms the indispensable part of the legislature; and it is the body to which at all times the executive must turn for justification and approval,” 304. Further, in the past decade it “has enormously improved its ordering of its own internal workings… and… has grown in stature,” 364. In spite of changes which have increased the cabinet's power, “the House of Commons does control the cabinet – rarely by defeating it, often by criticizing it, still more often by the cabinet anticipating criticism before subjecting itself and its acts to the House, and always by the latent capacity of the House to revolt against its leaders,” 366; see also 379. Dawson, as Aitchison, J.H. observed, “remained always a staunch and enthusiastic admirer of the British parliamentary system.” The Political Process in Canada: Essays in Honour of R. MacGregor Dawson, ed. Aitchison, J.H. (Toronto, 1963), vi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶³ Mallory, 242.

¹⁶⁴ Butler, David, The Study of Political Behaviour (London, 1966), 88.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ Mallory, xi.

¹⁶⁶ Ibid., 111

¹⁶⁷ This comment is made after they noted a series of recent journalistic and personal accounts of politics in the sixties which “provide insight into the workings of politics in Ottawa: however… the reader should try to maintain a broader perspective,” Van Loon and Whittington, 389n. See also 231.

¹⁶⁸ Ibid., 331.

¹⁶⁹ Ibid., 231. They later argue that parties should be strengthened. 264–5.

¹⁷⁰ Verney, “Government without Politics,” 18.

¹⁷¹ New fashions of analysis stimulate the desire for academic distinctiveness and help to make it possible. For a general discussion of the effect of fad and fashion on the style and language of social science, see Herbert Goldhamer, “Fashion and Social Science,” World Politics, VI (1954).

¹⁷² Van Loon and Whittington, 447, 465, 490, 495.

¹⁷³ Ibid., chaps. 4, 5, 6.

¹⁷⁴ Rationalism in Politics (London, 1962), 113.

¹⁷⁵ Van Loon and Whittington, 55, italics mine.

¹⁷⁶ Ibid., 94–5.

¹⁷⁷ Ibid., 32.

¹⁷⁸ Ibid., 495. They quickly revert to their normal stance and conclude by referring to the “significant minority of Canadians for whom the political system is not providing satisfaction. The political system in Canada is better than most – but that is not to say that it cannot be vastly improved,” 495. They previously noted “the central point… that when output decisions are made in the political system they generally conform to our basic societal norms,” 107, an extremely suggestive observation deserving investigation.

¹⁷⁹ Their discussion of the gradual erosion of British influence in Canadian affairs reveals their appreciation of evolutionary change. The distinction between local affairs and matters of concern to Britain “had the great advantage of yielding gradually to pressure whenever the occasion demanded. Material and far-reaching changes could thus be brought about not by sensational crises and bitter quarrels over great principles, but quietly, and as a rule temperately, through the settlement of minor problems arising in the day to day relationships of the British and overseas governments.” Dawson and Ward, 40–1.

¹⁸⁰ Ibid., 167.

¹⁸¹ Ibid., 380.

¹⁸² Mallory, 1.

¹⁸³ Eugene Forsey undoubtedly has been the classic player of this role of tending the system.

¹⁸⁴ Perhaps the chief lesson Mallory derives from his historical research is the imperative need for constitutions, and the institutions of which they are composed, to be flexible and responsive. He returns again and again to the theme that no political system can be impervious to the changing world in which it lives, 369–71. The flexibility of the British constitutional system, p. 11, and of cabinet government, p. 108, illustrate the fortunate nature of the Canadian political heritage. For other illustrations of a much praised flexibility see 99, 126. See also Van Loon and Whittington for praise of the flexible Canadian constitution, 149.

¹⁸⁵ Mallory, 322.

¹⁸⁶ See S.J.R. Noel, “Political Parties and Elite Accommodation: Interpretations of Canadian Federalism,” in Meekison, Canadian Federalism for a Canadian application of the theory of “consociational democracy” developed by Arend Lijphart, a Dutch political scientist. See also the papers by Lijphart, , Noel, , and Bergeron, Gérard at the 1970 Colloque in the Canadian Journal of Political Science, IV (1971).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁷ Except for American authors dealing with Canada, such as Hartz, and Taylor Cole.

¹⁸⁸ Chapter iii, “Political Participation: Input Behaviour,” 65–95, is particularly weak, as John Wilson suggests. “The real problem is that the authors’ treatment of what they regard as the key elements in the environment of the Canadian political system suffers from a lack of empirical data so staggering as to suggest that the analysis ought not to have been attempted. To be fair, they recognize that their data are inadequate to the task they have undertaken, but that does not cover the essential absurdity of seeking to discuss political socialization in Canada on the basis of two surveys of schoolchildren in communities in eastern Ontario. In short, this section of the book should never have been written. That it has been creates the possibility that the book as a whole may do more harm than good to the cause its authors seek to serve.” Review, Canadian Public Administration, 15 (1972), 400.

Even Part v, dealing with the policy process, described as “possibly the most important part of the book,” 1, has serious limitations to counterbalance its strong points. The latter lie in its refusal to accept a simplified view of the role of institutions in terms of their manifest functions. The main limitation is the highly abstract nature of their description. They admit that remarkably little is known about the policy process “whereby inputs are actually converted to outputs,” and the available knowledge is at a “very unsophisticated level.” 493.

¹⁸⁹ Macpherson, C.B., “The Position of Political Science,” Culture, III (1942).Google Scholar Eleven years later he heeded his own urging with the publication of Democracy in Alberta: The Theory anil Practice of a Quasi-Party System (Toronto, 1953).

¹⁹⁰ Democracy in America (New York, 1954), Vol. 1, 15.

¹⁹¹ The Race Question in Canada, ed. Underhill, Frank H. (Toronto, 1966Google Scholar; originally published in French in 1906; first English edition in 1907).

¹⁹² 1.

¹⁹³ Bryce, James, Canada: An Actual Democracy (Toronto, 1921), 1.Google Scholar