• darkblurbg
    Canadian Political Science Association
    2020 Annual Conference Programme

    Confronting Political Divides
    Hosted at Western University
    Tuesday, June 2 to Thursday, June 4, 2020
  • darkblurbg
    Presidential Address:
    Barbara Arneil, CPSA President

    Origins:
    Colonies and Statistics

    Location:
    Tuesday, June 2, 2020 | 05:00pm to 06:00pm
  • darkblurbg
    KEYNOTE SPEAKER:
    Ayelet Shachar
    The Shifting Border:
    Legal Cartographies of Migration
    and Mobility

    Location:
    June 04, 2020 | 01:30 to 03:00 pm
  • darkblurbg
    Keynote Speaker: Marc Hetherington
    Why Modern Elections
    Feel Like a Matter of
    Life and Death

    Location:
    Wednesday, June 3, 2020 | 03:45pm to 05:15pm
  • darkblurbg
    Plenary Panel
    Indigenous Politics and
    the Problem of Canadian
    Political Science

    Location: Arts & Humanities Building - AHB 1R40
    Tuesday, June 2, 2020 | 10:30am to 12:00pm

Canadian Politics



A08(b) - Public Opinion about “Contentious” Issues

Date: Jun 3 | Time: 08:45am to 10:15am | Location:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Melanee Thomas (University of Calgary)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Melanee Thomas (University of Calgary)

The Opioid Crisis as a Policy Issue in the 2019 Canadian Federal Election: Megan Aiken (University of Alberta)
Abstract: Despite calls from advocacy groups, citizens, and even candidates within their local campaigns, attention toward the opioid crisis by the major parties has been referred to as little more than lip service (Armstrong 2019; LaFlamme and Slaughter 2019). The opioid crisis is part of a complex, historical policy problem that has been characterized as both a public health and public safety problem, depending on the identities of those afflicted by opioid addiction (Carstairs 2006). Moreover, like in the United States, the opioid crisis may also be a consequence of “economic and social upheaval” (Dasgupta et a 2018). Regardless, it must be questioned why a public health emergency that has claimed over 12,000 lives in three years is not centre stage during a major, divisive federal election. By considering the race- and class-based legacy of the opioid crisis couched within an analysis of what the major parties did say about the crisis, this paper seeks to answer that question. References: Armstrong, Mike. “Ignored & Ignited: Overdose deaths.” Global News. October 18, 2019. Carstairs, Catherine. Jailed for Possession: Illegal Drug Use, Regulation, and Power in Canada, 1920-1961. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2006. Dasgupta, Nabarun, Leo Beletsky, and Daniel Ciccarone. “Opioid Crisis: No Easy Fix to Its Social and Economic Determinants.” American Journal of Public Health. 108(2): 182-186. 2018. LaFlamme, Lisa. “ ‘Our people are dying’: Those at the centre of the opioid crisis want more than political promises.” CTV News. October 15, 2019.


Status, Political Values, Perceptions of Quality and Policy Feedback: Parental Approaches to School Choice in Canada: Jim Farney (University of Regina), Linda White (University of Toronto)
Abstract: Election studies have traditionally focussed on vote choice as the most fundamental instance of citizen choice. This paper benefits from the consortium model of the C-Dem project to examine a more costly instance of individual choice: the type of school that parents choose for their children. Though schools have long been recognized as important sites of socialization for the pupils who attend them, this paper is one of the first efforts to examine decisions that parents make about where to send their children as an important instance of political decision-making. It assesses, at the national level, the nature of the linkages between the socio-demographic status of parents, their political values, their perception of what makes for good quality education, and the type of K-12 education parents choose for their children. It examines this connection within a larger theoretical framework that sees the choices made by parents as an important stage in a policy feedback loop that has important implications for equity in educational outcomes and the maintenance of public education systems.


Reconciling Reconciliation: Identifying the Correlates of Settler Support for Indigenous Reconciliation across Canada: Adrienne Davidson (Queen's University)
Abstract: Since the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report in 2015, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples has been very much on the forefront of Canadian political discourse. Despite its importance, we know surprisingly little about drivers of public support for Indigenous reconciliation among settler Canadians. While 64 per cent of non-Indigenous Canadians say that individual Canadians have a role to play in reconciliation, public support varies more considerably when it comes to individual policy efforts. Moreover, these overall rates tell us little about who supports efforts at reconciliation and what features may shape citizen support. Are opinions driven by ideological or partisan lines? Are they shaped by regional patterns of public opinion? Are they shaped by differences in underlying national imaginaries regarding the fundamental nature of Canada (e.g. Canada as multinational vs. multicultural)? Answers to these questions would provide a clearer picture of how the public thinks about Indigenous reconciliation, and identify those that are likely to line up in support of or opposition to government efforts to engage in the project of (re)conciliation. Drawing on survey data from the Confederation of Tomorrow Survey, conducted over December 2018 – January 2019, this paper explores the factors that are associated with settler support for Indigenous reconciliation. Relying on survey data from a geographically representative sample of more than 5,000 Canadians, including a territorial over-sample, I provide a systematic investigation of the sociodemographic and attitudinal correlates of support for reconciliation in terms of urban/rural cleavages, regional cleavages, and partisan cleavages.


Free Speech and Political Activism in Canadian Higher Ed: Insights on Student Beliefs and Behavior: Jeffrey Sachs (Acadia University)
Abstract: Is free speech under threat on Canadian college and university campuses? A growing number of media commentators (Kay 2018, Shepherd 2019), advocacy groups (e.g. the Justice Centre for Constitutional Findings, the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship), and academics (MacKinnon 2018) believe that it is, often singling out “political correctness” and leftwing censorship as objects of special concern. According to a 2018 CAUT/Environics survey, a significant number of Canadians agree, with roughly 25% of respondents saying that free speech is somewhat or very threatened on campus. Policymakers have taken notice. During his race for leadership of the Conservative Party, Andrew Scheer vowed to strip federal funding from any higher education institution that fails to protect free speech. And in Ontario, a similar policy has been put into place at the provincial level, albeit to uncertain effect. In this paper, I explore whether there is indeed a free speech “crisis” on Canadian campuses. I focus in particular on incidents of speaker de-platformings and faculty terminations for controversial speech, as these are both the most visible threats to campus free speech and the phenomena that are driving the “crisis” narrative. Using a Social Movements analysis, I explore the frequency of these events, their targets, and the dynamics on campus that produce them.


Trends in Public Support for Immigration in Canada: Untangling the Effects of Life Cycle, Formative Experiences, and Time Period: Stephen White (Carleton University)
Abstract: In the course of two decades beginning in the mid-1990s, Canadian public opinion grew increasingly receptive to immigrants. Using data from the Canadian Election Studies, 1997-2015, this paper applies Age-Period-Cohort analysis to interpret this trend. Its central argument is that distinguishing between effects related to movement through the life cycle (Age), events at specific points in time (Period), and differences between groups of individuals with particular experiences over the same span of time (Cohorts) should take into account the ways in which those effects can vary dramatically across different sub-populations. Examining Canadian-born and immigrant populations separately, the analysis reveals the same powerful and positive period effect for both groups, but divergent cohort effects: more recent generations born in Canada are generally less receptive to immigrants than were previous Canadian-born generations, while more recent cohorts of immigrants are generally more receptive to immigrants than were previous cohorts.




Return to Home