Quelle formation pour l'éducation à la citoyenneté?, Sous la direction de Fernand Ouellet, Québec : Les Presses de l'Université Laval, 2004, 246 pages.

Face à la baisse du taux de participation aux élections et à l'accentuation du pluralisme dans un monde où les frontières sont de moins en moins étanches, le gouvernement québécois a institué des réformes ayant comme objectif d'inclure au curriculum une éducation à la citoyenneté. Différents penseurs s'interrogent sur le rôle des enseignants et sur la formation nécessaire en vue de cet enseignement. Quelle formation pour l'éducation à la citoyenneté, sous la direction de Fernand Ouellet, est le produit de ces préoccupations.

The intent of this paper is to demonstrate (1) that Marx's analysis of the workers' fate under capitalism is not quite as scientific as he had professed, and (2) that, on the other hand, his analysis of wage and employment determination in a capitalist economy is not quite as misleading as many critics contend.

If Marx's theoretical contributions in this area have been unjustly discounted by “bourgeois economists,” much of the fault may be traced directly to Marx himself. For it was he who suggested that the veracity of his economic analysis could be measured by the accuracy of his economic predictions. Non-Marxists and neo-Marxists alike have faithfully followed his suggestion. Thus, since overwhelming evidence of rising standards of living in Western capitalist countries clearly discredits Marx's prediction concerning the increasing misery of the proletariat, we generally discard not only the prediction but also the theoretical apparatus whence it was allegedly derived.

To reject Marx in this matter on his own grounds, however, is to acknowledge logical consistency in his derivation of prediction from model. It is the consistency that is questioned here. And if Marx's prediction of misery is found not to derive from his wage and employment theory, then the Marxian theory of wages and employment may prove to be a more valid view of capitalism than is generally suspected.

On these annual ceremonial occasions it has been customary to have an Economist look at Economics, a Statistician discuss the role of Statistics, the Historian look at History, or all the Social Scientists look concertedly at some synthetic product called Social Science. There have been some exceptions to this type of procedure. I shall take my cue from the latter and discuss some matters in the Canadian scene in which the various Social Sciences have a common interest.

Canada's Population Possibilities. In the first place, let us consider Canada's population. In recent years we have heard much about the so-called over-populated and under-populated countries. The crudest form in which notions of this kind are presented is in terms of number of people per square mile of land surface. By this device Canada's 2½ per square mile seems to demonstrate obvious under-population as compared with England's 390, forgetting that this 390 involves resources not only at home but also abroad. We seem to be on safer ground when we take arable land surface as a base for presenting population densities. Then Canada seems not so vacant with 121 to the square mile. The arable land index should be supplemented by indices of available minerals and closely allied items. Such measuring rods could be extended to include (1) real income trends for the country as a whole as well as for its varied occupations, (2) the employment index, and (3) trends in population growth. These merely suggest some of the indices that could be used to make comparisons of population pressure on the living space of different countries.

The Maxim “divide and rule” has often been supposed to govern the policy of imperial powers with respect to their dependencies. The United Kingdom, however, has for many years favoured the closer association of its colonies in the Caribbean area, and since 1945 has been actively promoting their federation. As this effort approaches a successful conclusion, it is of some interest to inquire into the reasons for the adoption and pursuit of a policy which seems so much at variance with one of the classic precepts of imperialism.

Dominion Order-in-Council 1003 passed in February of this year promises to be epoch-making in labour relations in Canada. It commands the parties to bargain collectively, assists them to reach agreement, names and enjoins against both employer and workers certain practices opposed to wholesome bargaining relations, and sets up a special Board judicial in character to administer and enforce the Order. Following as it does in the wake of a half-dozen provincial statutes reaching toward the same general purpose, its appearance calls for a review of state policy with respect to collective bargaining in modern industrial society. What are the trends? And with what particular phases of the movement has the State concerned itself across a century and a half? What is to be the future status of collective agreements at law?

The attitude and behaviour of the State may conveniently be considered in three phases which are only roughly separable in time. In some countries all three have been experienced while in others progress has been made only to the second. There is considerable difference in opinion in fact whether the change from the second to the third represents the true path of social advance. The first phase is found in the earlier nineteenth-century outlook and practice of State opposition to collective bargaining (a condition which in some countries continued well into the twentieth). The second involves the withdrawal of opposition but where collective bargaining is regarded as outside the State's responsibility. Trade unions and employers' associations are treated as voluntary autonomous associations having important dealings with one another, but collective agreements have no status as contracts; neither in negotiating or enforcing, in assisting or in interpreting does the State lend its authoritative hand. The two collective parties are left to work it out for themselves without benefit of sovereign authority. Third we find the phase of positive State participation, operating as the case may be (1) through compulsion in labour disputes seen in its fullest in Australia; (2) through making collective agreements enforceable at law and thus making the parties responsible for performance, practised for many years in Sweden; (3) through compelling the parties (and particularly the employer) to negotiate with a view to forming agreements, the classic example being the United States since the middle 1930's; and finally (4), in addition to this last, through assuming a responsibility for assisting them to reach agreement and provide adequate machinery for interpretation and enforcement, these being the heavy tasks of government under the Canadian Order.

This article compares the lexical performances of Canadian political leaders in the French-language leaders' debate broadcast during the federal election of 1988, in order to test some hypotheses concerning the relations between the communication strategies adopted by the leaders and their respective role in the party system. The author shows that the political discourse of the leader of the government party does not follow the same line of argumentation as those developed by the leaders of the opposing parties. To do so, the study employs indicators like tenses clauses, name-dropping, frequency of numbers, self-presentation and criticism of the adversaries. The author also identifies the most significant words and compares the issues developed by each leader to test the relevance of the political mimesis thesis and to estimate the importance granted to the critiques of the respective adversaries and specific propositions for the future.

Despite a rash of proposals for structural change in the government of Canada, the constitutional changes of 1982 did not bring it about. There continues to be pressure for change, especially on the part of those desiring regional representation in a strengthened second chamber. The argument of the article is that only some changes, at the limit a Bundesrat-type chamber, are compatible with the majority principle on which parliamentary government is based. An elective Senate creates problems for parliamentary government in Australia and is basically incompatible with majority rule; the introduction of such a chamber may well require the adoption of something like the United States or Swiss model. A constitutional mini-convention is proposed to negotiate such a chamber, if desired, with the first ministers prior to the employment of the new amending process.