It is only natural that Canada should most frequently be compared with the United States, and that models, metaphors, and theories of the political system that are applicable to the one should be assumed to be applicable to the other. That there are certain close similarities is obvious: both are federations, both span the North American continent, both are affluent Western democracies, and both exist within the common economic framework of modern capitalism. These and other similarities, however, too often obscure the significance of those differences which do exist, or cause similarities which exist with other countries to be neglected. This is particularly true of European countries, even though it would appear to be the case that Canadians, with their strong linguistic and cultural differences, have a good deal in common with at least some Europeans. This is not to say that Canada is more European than American. It is merely to suggest that there may be some advantages to be gained from occasionally viewing Canadian politics from a European perspective.

Pendant «les événements » que nous vivons au Canada depuis une douzaine de jours, c'est d'une involontaire ironie de la conjoncture que nous soyons réinis pour discuter de l'« intégration » avec application au cas canadien – même sous Tangle tháorique…

When a panel is composed of residents from three or four of the conventionally defined Canadian regions, the issue of whether or not regionalism still persists in Canada is already to a large extent prejudged. For this reason, and also because I am doubtful of my credentials as either an interpreter or bearer of any particular set of regional values, I propose to address myself to the problem of how one can measure regional effects.

I would like to begin my remarks by taking issue with the approach to regional phenomena in Canada implied in Professor Irvine's paper, “Assessing Regional Effects in Data Analysis.” Irvine deals with the problems of locating and quantifying statistically significant (and meaningful) relationships among behavioural data categorized by geographical regions. The implicit assumption in this approach is that the existence of regions is not in question, only the extent of their relevance to the interpretation of political data.

The paper delineates the role of reporters in the coverage of governmental activities. The sources of news and their evaluation are emphasized. The paper investigates the mutual dependence of government officials and correspondents, the channels of information preferred by the latter, the manner in which they seek news, and their evaluation of the collaboration of government officials.

After interviewing most of the reporters of the Quebec government “galerie de la presse” during 1968–9, the author indicates that the correspondents prefer informal ways of uncovering news and do not think highly of information officers. In general, they look for partisan information rather than a formal presentation of administrative activities, and controversial subjects particularly are considered to be of special interest. In all, the role of the reporters may be more passive than active, but “their presence serves as a constant guarantee of responsible public information.”

Readers of Thomas H. Greene's article, “Values and the Methodology of Political Science,” may have detected a theme of importance to political philosophy, a theme which, however, the author did not explicitly identify. Greene divided his essay into five parts: the first, third, and fifth parts contain what I believe to be an argument in favour of the reconciliation of social science and political philosophy; the second and fourth parts are devoted, in some measure, to a criticism of two contemporary political philosophers, Eric Voegelin and Leo Strauss. Greene argues, in effect, that the reconciliation of political philosophy with social science will have taken place when political philosophy is understood within the categories of social science, specifically within “Robert Merton's categories of theoretical range” (p. 274). The truth of Greene's argument depends, in part at least, upon the correctness of his understanding of Voegelin and Strauss. Correlatively, his argument is vitiated to the extent that he has not understood what Voegelin and Strauss have written about politics and theory and why, on the basis of such writings, they object to social science. What the author does not consider, but which ought to be considered, is the possibility that if social scientists and political philosophers have little of creative import to say to each other, it may be for sound reasons.

The Preliminary Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism begins with a sombre statement concerning the condition of Canada. The commissioners note that “Canada … is passing through the greatest crisis in its history” and that “the source of the crisis lies in the Province of Quebec.” The purpose of this note is to report the results of a limited investigation of that crisis.

In December 1966 a study was conducted in the public and separate schools of Kingston, Ontario, to measure the development of political knowledge and attitudes of a group of young Canadian children. The research was patterned after the pioneering effort of F. Greenstein, and many questions similar to his were employed to enable the making of comparisons of patterns of socialization in groups of Canadian and American children.