¹ Truman, David, “Federalism and the Party System,” in Wildavsky, Aaron (ed.), American Federalism in Perspective(Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), 81–108Google Scholar. To the extent that federalism implies sectional diversity (which it need not always imply), it almost necessarily leads to a federalized party organization. In George Hougham's words, “Sectional diversity precluded the establishment of a unitary state in 1867. Sectional diversity has, likewise, precluded the establishment of unitary party organizations…. In the early years, indeed, both the Liberal and Conservative parties were nothing more than loose alliances of sectional groups” (“The Background and Development of National Parties,” in Thorbum, Hugh G. [ed.], Party Politics in Canada[2nd ed., Scarborough: Prentice-Hall, 1967], 13)Google Scholar.

² Both William Riker, in a general theoretical context, and Donald Smiley, in the specific Canadian context, talk at some length about the close relationship between the party system and the operation of a federal system. See Riker, William H., Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance(Boston: Little, Brown, 1964)Google Scholar, and Donald V. Smiley, Canada in Question: Federalism in the Seventies (2nd ed., Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson), especially chap. 4.

³ The author undertook a series of semi-structured interviews with backbench parliamentarians in both Liberal parties, alongside a similar series of interviews with parliamentarians in the Belgian Social Christian party (with response rates of about 80 percent in each setting). In each party, interviews were conducted with about half of the backbench contingent in the lower house of each legislature, with some oversampling of the minority language group in each case. Oral interviews were coupled with a relatively short written questionnaire, containing a variety of “agree-disagree statements”. Those written statements were included as well in a mail-out questionnaire addressed to leading party activists. It is difficult to know whether the 40 and 46 per cent of the federal and provincial activists polled who did respond to those questionnaires were different in systematic ways from those who did not, since relatively little is known about the latter. Their roles within their parties and their place of residence is known, and on that basis there appear to be no grounds for fearing an unrepresentative sample. It is true that among federal activists, constituency association presidents responded more frequently than the average, and campaign managers less frequently—49 and 30 per cent respectively—but there were no indications that either category of respondent had markedly distinctive perspectives on the issues probed here. (For more details on the study from which this analysis is extracted, see Rayside, David M., “Linguistic Divisions in the Social Christian Party of Belgium and the Liberal Parties of Canada and Quebec,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, 1976.)Google Scholar

⁴ Smiley, Canada in Question, 102.

⁵ Ibid., 84–85.

⁶ Escott M. Reid, “The Rise of National Parties in Canada,” in Thorbum (ed.), Party Politics, 16.

⁷ Smiley, Canada in Question, 93–94.

⁸ Laurier papers: Dandurand to Laurier, January 4,1918, quoted in Peter Regenstreif, “The Liberal Party of Canada: A Political Analysis,” Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, 1963, 128.

⁹ By some accounts, the Quebec organization is now more involved in the activities of the central office in Ottawa, and Quebec personnel are more fully integrated with those from other parts of Canada. But there is still a certain separateness in the relationship between the Montreal and Ottawa offices, and despite appearances there is probably still some feeling that a disproportionate amount of the Ottawa office's activities are oriented towards the English-speaking provinces.

¹⁰ Interview C35, July 27, 1973.

¹¹ The relationship between federal and provincial Liberals and the split between them is described in detail in Bergeron, Gerard, Du dupplessisme a Trudeau et Bourassa, 1956–1971(Montreal: Editions Parti Pris, 1971)Google Scholar. For the 1940's and 1950's, Lapalme, George-Emile, Memoires, Tome II, Le ventde Voubli (Montreal: Lemeac, 1970)Google Scholar and Nadeau, Jean-Marie, Carnetspolitiques(Montreal: Parti Pris, 1966)Google Scholar are useful sources of information and opinion.

¹² This argument is presented by Harill, Ernest E., “The Structure of Organization and Power in Canadian Political Parties: A Study in Party Financing,” Ph.D. thesis, University of North Carolina, 1958, 280–87Google Scholar; by Simeon, Richard, Federal-Provincial Diplomacy: The Making of Recent Policy in Canada(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972), 34Google Scholar, and by others.

¹³ Smiley marshals an impressive amount of evidence in this regard, although he takes care to note that the distinctiveness of federal and provincial voting patterns varies by region and province (Canada in Question, 85–92).

¹⁴ Henry Jacek, John McDonough, Richard Shimuzu, and Patrick Smith, “Federal-Provincial Integration in Ontario Party Organization—The Influence of Recruitment Patterns,” paper presented to the 1970 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, 102. Cited in Smiley, Canada in Question, 93.

¹⁵ Ward, Norman (ed.), The Memoirs of Chubby Power: A Party Politician(Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1966), 312Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ This is the assessment of Reginald Whitaker in an extraordinarily comprehensive and insightful analysis of the relationship between federal and provincial Liberals in Quebec, contained in “The Quebec Liberals: Federal-Provincial Aspects of Party Organization, 1921–1964,” mimeo, 1976, 56.

¹⁸ Ward, Memoirs, 347.

¹⁹ Lovink, J. A. A., “The Politics of Quebec: Provincial Political Parties, 1897–1936,” Ph.D. thesis, Duke University, 1968, 98–149Google Scholar. Whitaker argues that the provincial organization was the dominant partner during the 1920's, at the height of Premier Taschereau's power, although that might have been more short-lived than Whitaker claims. (“The Quebec Liberals,” 50–51.)

²⁰ Consistency was not always maintained along these lines. In 1931, when the federal Liberals were in opposition, Premier Taschereau urged on Quebecers the importance of electing a government in Quebec that was not of the same party as the federal government!

²¹ Interview, March 21, 1969.

²² La Réforme, November 21, 1956.

²³ Paltiel, Khayyam Z., “Federalism and Party Finance: A Preliminary Sounding,” in Paltiel, K. Z. et al. , Studies in Canadian Party Financing (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1966), 1–21Google Scholar.

²⁴ From “Le Rapport du congrès spécial de la Federation liberate du Quebec, tenu au Motel des Laurentides a Beauport, le dimanche, 5 juillet, 1964.”

²⁵ Smiley, Canada in Question, 93–94.

²⁶ According to Roman March, for example (The Myth of Parliament [Scarborough: Prentice-Hall of Canada, 1974]Google Scholar), about 49 per cent of all MPs in Ottawa who served between 1867 and 1873 had at least run for provincial office. Between 1874 and 1899, the figure was about 28 per cent, and for 1911–1939, it was 22–23 per cent. By the 1959–1964 period, only 6.7 per cent had run for provincial office (32–33). According to Smiley's count of the 1974 House of Commons, only 4.9 per cent had ever held provincial seats and only 13.3 percent had ever even contested provincial elections. The figures for the Liberals were 2 per cent and 4 per cent respectively (Canada in Question, 97).

²⁷ Truman, “Federalism and the Party System,” 102.

²⁸ Smiley makes the same point, arguing that the unprogrammatic nature of Canadian parties, coupled with a reliance on personality-based electoral appeals, reduces the ties binding federal and provincial politicians of the same partisan stripe (Canada in Question, 96).

²⁹ Among provincial Liberals there were 21 francophone MNAs, in addition to 94 local activists of both language groups.

³⁰ For opposing views on this subject, see Johnson, Daniel, “Speech in the Quebec Legislature, April 23,1963,” in Scott, Frank and Oliver, Michael(eds.), Quebec States Her Case (Toronto: Macmillan, 1964), 31–40Google Scholar; and Trudeau, Pierre Elliott, Federalism and the French Canadians (Toronto: Macmillan, 1968), 3–51Google Scholar.

³¹ Interview Q12, November 29, 1973, author's translation.

³² Interview Q13, November 29, 1973, author's translation.

³³ Interview Q24, December, 1973, author's translation.

³⁴ Smiley, Canada in Question, 108.

³⁵ Representative of this literature is the following: Stiefbold, Rodney P., “Segmented Pluralism and Consociational Democracy: Problems of Political Stability and Change,” in Heisler, Martin O. (ed.), Politics in Europe: Structures and Processes in Some Post-industrial Democracies (New York: McKay, 1974), 117–78Google Scholar; Duverger, Maurice, Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modem State, trans, by Barbara, and North, Robert (New York: Wiley, Science Editions, 1963), 182–202Google Scholar; McClosky, Herbert, Hoffman, Paul J., and O'Hara, Rosemary, “Issue Conflict and Consensus Among Party Leaders and Followers,” American Political Science Review 54 (1960): 406–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Costantini, Edmond, “Intraparty Attitude Conflict: Democratic Party Leadership in California,” Western Political Quarterly 16 (1963): 956–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Flinn, Thomas A. and Wirt, Frederick M., “Local Party Leaders: Groups of Like-Minded Men,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 9 (1965), 77–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁶ May, John D., “Opinion Structure of Political Parties: The Special Law of Curvilinear Disparity,” Political Studies 21 (1973), 135–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁷ Hirschman, Albert O., Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970)Google Scholar, especially chap. 7.

³⁸ For variations on this theme, see Muller, Stephen, “Federalism and the Party System in Canada,” in Meekison, J. Peter (ed.), Canadian Federalism: Myth or Reality (Toronto: Methuen, 1968), 154Google Scholar; Lipset, Seymour Martin, “Democracy in Alberta,” in Courtney, John C. (ed.), Voting in Canada (Scarborough: Prentice-Hall, 1967), 182–85Google Scholar; and Simeon, Federal-Provincial Diplomacy, 27–29, 303.

³⁹ Simeon, Federal-Provincial Diplomacy, 28.

⁴⁰ Truman, “Federalism and the Party System,” 104.

⁴¹ John Porter argues something of the reverse, namely that it is the preoccupation with regionalism that has reduced the “temperature” and the ideological coloration of political debate in Canada. There are, however, several good explanations for the weakness of working class parties and the present-day absence of the sort of clerical parties that characterize European party systems that do not rest on the argument that contemporary national parties are preoccupied with regionalism and with questions of “national unity.” (See Porter, John, The Vertical Mosaic [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965]CrossRefGoogle Scholar, chap. 12.)

⁴² Caims, Alan C., “The Electoral System and the Party System in Canada, 1921–1965,” this Journal 1 (1968), 65Google Scholar.