Seminar 18
Date:  4 November , 2014
Time: 4 - 5.15pm
Venue: Building 24, Copland, Room 1171, LJ Hume Centre

Speaker:  Rainer Knopff is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Calgary. His work ranges broadly across the areas of public law, public policy, and political thought, with a particular focus on Canadian issues. He has published numerous books, articles, and chapters in these areas. Current work includes a book entitled How Democratic is the Charter, and Does it Matter?, which builds on an article of the same name. Another book project, tentatively entitled Courting Controversy, explores the rhetorical strategies used by courts to manage highly contentious public issues. A somewhat different line of research concerns land use issues in Alberta, with an emphasis on how policies governing hunting and fishing rights can be adjusted to improve wildlife stewardship and the stability of ecologically significant landscapes. He is also pursuing research on aboriginal hunting and fishing rights.

Paper Title:  Stabilizing Minority Government: Would New Zealand’s Confidence Protocol or European Constructive Non-Confidence be good for Canada (and perhaps Australia)?

Paper Abstract:  As Canada’s recent spate of minority government (2004-2011) was getting underway, a number of commentators recommended that Canadians should import the New Zealand protocol regarding the loss of “confidence” by a government. Proponents maintained that this protocol, which does not permit a defeated prime minister to request the dissolution of parliament, would help stabilize what promised to be – and what was in fact (by Canadian standards) – a considerable period of minority government in Ottawa. In particular, the protocol’s Canadian advocates argued that it would reduce the tendency for minority governments to trigger “snap” elections for purely partisan reasons. Another proposal to achieve the same end is to require European-style “constructive” non-confidence votes, which can defeat an existing government only by also (and simultaneously) proposing a viable alternative. “Early election” controversies certainly arose in dramatic fashion in Canada between 2004 and 2011. We ask how well the New Zealand protocol and/or constructive non-confidence would have addressed the issues raised by these controversies? Should Canada (and perhaps Australia) adopt either of these confidence models?