Assignment 1 examines your ability to interpret and critically assess the course readings. It is
worth 10% of your final grade for the course. You should begin this assignment at the same time
you are working on Unit 3.
Topic
Write an essay of 750 to 1000 words (3 to 4 pages) that summarizes the reasons for either
economic underdevelopment or regional alienation in Canada. Discuss which explanations seem
most convincing to you, and give reasons why you hold this opinion. Your opinion should be
expressed as a thesis statement and should appear at the end of your first or second paragraph.
While most of the assignment can be completed using the resource materials below, you are
expected to supplement these materials with additional evidence and more up-to-date materials.
Two will do. You may use academic sources from the Athabasca University Library (see the
resource materials listed below), or journal articles from online library databases. You may also
use resource materials from the web, but you may not rely exclusively on web resources. Since
the quality of material found on the Internet can vary dramatically, be sure to discuss the sites
you have selected with your tutor before you proceed with your assignment.
Refer to the “Tips on Writing Essays” section of this Assignment Manual for detailed instructions
on preparing and submitting your assignment.
Resource Materials
Savoie, Donald. 2003. “Regional Development: A Policy for All Seasons and All Regions.” In New
Trends in Canadian Federalism, 2nd ed., edited by François Rocher and Miriam Smith, pp. 353–
374. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.
Stevenson, Garth. 2004. “The Political Economy of Decentralization.” Chapter 4 in Unfulfilled
Union, 4th ed., pp. 72–93. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. (Students
beginning the course after January, 2011 will be using the 5th edition of Stevenson, published in
2009; the pages are the same.)
Supplementary Materials
Gibbins, Roger. 1998. “Federal and Regional Alienation.” In Challenges to Canadian Federalism,
edited by M. W. Westmacott, pp. 40–51. Scarborough, ON: Prentice Hall.
Savoie, Donald. 2006. Visiting Grandchildren: Economic Development in the Maritimes. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Young, Lisa, and Archer, Keith. 2002. Regionalism and Party Politics in Canada. Toronto: Oxford
University Press.
Running head: THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY
The Quebec Quest for Autonomy
Sara Al-Marashdeh
POLI390
Athabasca University
1
THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY
2
Comments :
Sara, read through the comments in your essay for details. There are
significant analytical and evidence-based problems with the effort here. I will
accept this effort but you must give greater attention to the explicit question in
future assignments and craft a thesis statement up front that will guide you as
you write. If you are unsure, discuss it with me beforehand. Also, for a senior
course in political science, your writing and grammar are a little
"choppy." Work on this and proofread your assignments before you submit
them. (By the way, it is strongly recommended that you complete your
assignments in the order in which they appear. I do not have any record of a
quiz or Assignment 1.)
The Quebec Quest for Autonomy
Introduction
The deep split between the English speaking and French-speaking populations have been
the cause of two failed referendums. While the differences between the French and English
speaking populations have been dominant in both Quebec and Ontario, the voice for secession
has been louder in Quebec. Today, Quebec is a home for more than 8.1 million Canadians, with
20% of the population being English speaking while the rest are French-speaking. (there are
many allophones and bilingual individuals in Quebec) Apart from Quebec and the British
Columbia, the French Canadians form a significant minority in every other province. Before the
turn of the 21st century, there was a turbulent and violent relationship between the two groups in
Quebec. Since the French felt that they did not gain their fair share of the economic cake of the
country, besides feeling alienated and dominated by the English speakers in many of the other
provinces, they have always harbored thoughts of secession. Twice, in 1980 and in 1995, Quebec
THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY
3
has gone to the referendum with the aim of seceding from the rest of Canada. During the first
referendum, the secession proponents lost by a reasonably large gap. However, in the 1995
referendum, the group lost narrowly (Lluch, 2010). √ referencing is important Dual nationality is
a complex socio-political concept; especially that it is strange to the American way of thinking.
In Canada, before a decision is made, there is due to be a consideration of its acceptance to both
the French and English speaking groups. A wide range of social, political and religious factors
have been responsible for the inability of Canada to reach an acceptable constitutional agreement
over Quebec, and a solution looks like a pipe dream. √ good but briefly explain why here and
then use the body of the essay to detail, support, and analyze developments – this is an essay
largely about Meech Lake and Charlottetown so these should be part of your thesis However,
when all the partied drop their hardline positions and engage in a constructive dialogue over the
problems that Quebec faces, it is possible to get a solution to the challenges that Quebec faces.
The foundation of Quebec Drive for Self-Determination
The defeat of the French in Canada can be described as the foundation of the
contemporary divide between the French and English speaking Canadians. After the defeat of the
French, the Catholic Church advised the French living in Canada, including those residing in the
French-dominated Quebec, to step back from the Canadian public life. With this advice, the
Catholic Church aimed at helping to preserve French culture and religious practices. As the
French-speaking populations retreated from the public life, they lost their space, and that
increased the dominance of the English speaking Canadians over them. As the Anglophones
advanced in areas such as business and politics in the society, the Francophone, even those in
Quebec where they were the clear majority, retreated to life outside the public sphere, with the
main aim of preserving their essentially agrarian life. In the long run, the Francophone group
THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY
4
realized that they had been outpaced and marginalized. From this period, the relationship
between the French and English speaking Canadians has not been cordial, not only in Quebec but
throughout the country. (here is why a precise thesis is so important: what does the information
in this paragraph have to do with “recent failures to achieve constitutional settlement agreeable
to Quebec” or the chances of this in the future)
In any society where a group feels that it does not have its rightful share, or where it feels
that it is not being respected, resentment is likely to arise, and sometimes it is likely to be violent.
In other provinces in Canada, French-speaking Canadians can live with the dominance of the
English speaking groups since they are the minority. However, in Quebec, the French-speaking
group is the majority, and they have decided to stand up and reclaim what they believe was
taken away from them by the English speaking Canadians.
Since the adoption of the federal systems of governance in Canada in 1867, there has
been a strong sense of nationalism among the French-speaking Canadians in Quebec. the
successive governments of Quebec have for many years believed that there the province is
unique, that there is something special in Quebec which makes it feel like the home of the
French-speaking Canadians, making it necessary for the French-speaking Canadians in Quebec
to fight very hard to protect. There is an attachment that the French-speaking Canadians have
with Quebec, especially with regards to culture and language and that makes it a primary interest
for the French Canadians.
Looking at the issues that the French Canadians had against the English speaking groups,
it is essential to note that they are deep and they tough (touch?? – proofread your submissions
before you submit them) on the very existence of society. The French Canadians feel threatened,
THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY
5
and they seek to impose themselves and dictate their future. However, by the time when the
French Canadians realized that they needed to rise up and reclaim their land, the English
speaking group had already taken a central place in the management of the affairs of the country,
even in Quebec where the French Canadians have a significant majority. Thus, when looking at
the problem in Quebec, it is notable that the issues are so deep that it may require more than just
a constitutional change for the French-speaking Canadian and the English speaking Canadians to
live harmoniously. However, it is still necessary to have an understanding of the factors that have
contributed to the failure to have an agreeable constitutional solution that would bring the
Quebec problem to rest.
The factors that contributed to the series of recent failures to reach a constitutional
settlement that is agreeable to Quebec (this is the heart of the essay and you should get to it
very quickly and not leave it until almost half-way through your essay – much of the
foregoing, though mostly true, is not relevant to this essay)
The deep divide between French-speaking Canadians in Quebec and English speaking
Canadians is the primary factor that has made any possibility of an agreeable settlement very
distant. Evidently, neither the French Speaking group nor the English speaking group has been
willing to drop their hardline positions. For example, with the entry of the confederation, the
government of Quebec made attempts to block intrusions into their jurisdiction. From this
reality, it became evident that French-speaking Canadians are so determined to protect the
province that they are capable of doing anything possible to protect their values and culture.
Evidently, while English speaking Canadians are more likely to show a desire to engage in a
discussion over the issues, the French-speaking group is not willing to have a serious
engagement over the problems at Quebec (Niezen, 2016). Thus, from this end, it is evident that
THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY
6
there is no genuine interest from both parties to be involved in the process of finding a suitable
solution to the challenge. For there to be any meaningful disagreement over the attainment of an
agreeable legal solution to the challenge, it is essential to have both parties willing to
compromise. (explain where you see this unwillingness to compromise in recent attempts at
constitutional settlement – you must provide evidence to support your claims)
The difference in nationality among the residents of Quebec has enhanced the place of
religion in Quebec. Religion is at the heart of many decisions that the French-speaking
Canadians make. Most of the French-speaking Canadians have strong ties to the Catholic
Church, and this fact had in a way had a tremendous contribution to the stalemate. On the other
side, the English Speaking Canadians are largely Protestant, and that has had a significant impact
on the actions of the people. In many instances where there is a strong religious sentiment among
parties in a negotiation, it usually becomes very difficult to arrive at solutions that are agreeable
to both parties. The French-speaking Canadians usually rely on their religious beliefs when
making decisions. In these circumstances, it usually becomes difficult to arrive at meaningful
legal decisions. It is important to note that legal matters should not be mixed up with religious
considerations. Religion is a significant cause of conflicts and is a hindrance to the attainment of
peace in some regions in the world. The strong desire by the French-speaking Canadians in
Quebec to act according to their religious beliefs is a significant hindrance to the attainment of a
legal solution.
The quest for a legal solution to the Quebec problem has also been affected by the
presence of the Aboriginal peoples in the land. The Aboriginals are not many, yet they form a
significant portion of the Quebec population, and there is a need to consider their interests in the
creation of a legal solution to the problem. The problem is that the Aboriginals have a cultural set
THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY
7
up that is distinct from the cultural practices of the non-Aboriginal populations (Scott, 2011).
The presence of the Aboriginals throws in another variable in an already complex equation.
Thus, when developing a legal solution to the problem in Quebec, it would be necessary to make
sure that there is a consideration of the interests of the French-speaking Canadians, the English
speaking Canadians, and the aboriginals. Even by a stretch of the imagination, this would be a
tricky affair even to the most skilled negotiators.
Finally, the social and political forces that are at play in Quebec are massive, and they
have been significant in the obstruction of any legal agreement over Quebec. Socially, the
religion and culture of the French-speaking residents of Quebec have been major contributing
factors while on the legal side, the Federal government of Canada has always demonstrated
opposition to the idea of Quebec as an autonomous political entity. Like in any other secessionist
idea, the central or federal government is always willing to go the extra mile to protect every
inch of its territory. The situation in Quebec has a huge semblance with the situation in Catalonia
where the Catalans have been demanding to secede from Spain, but the Spanish government is
willing to do everything, including lethal force, to thwart the move (Gagnon, 2009). In this
regard, it is notable that political forces have presented a situation which makes it difficult to
arrive at an agreeable legal solution to the challenge. your reference to an example is a good
idea but it has to be done within the context of the current assignment – have there been recent
attempts to negotiate a constitutional settlement between Catalans and Spain that have failed
From the discussion above, it is evident that there is a plethora of evidence to suggest that
any process aimed at arriving at an agreeable legal solution is bound to fail. There are many
forces that are at play such as the religious and cultural norms of the French-speaking Canadians
in Quebec; the resistance by the political entities, as well as the interest of the Aboriginals make
THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY
8
the attainment of a legal solution to the Quebec problem an incredibly difficult affair. To find a
solution, it would be necessary to balance the interests of all these parties, something which is
almost impossible.
Is it reasonable to expect that an agreement can be reached?
Where there is any conflict, it is essential to believe that there would always be a
solution. As a matter of fact, there is always a solution to every challenge and conflict involving
humans. There is no illusion whatsoever regarding the enormity of the challenges facing Quebec.
However, while appreciating the enormity of the challenge, there is confidence that a solution is
likely to be found in the near future. Firstly, one of the most important questions to consider is
(whether??) the solution to the problem only exists in legal changes? After a critical
examination of the differences and problems facing Quebec, it is safe to say that a solution rests
not only on legal changes but simple administrative. The main problem in the issue is that the
French Speaking residents of Quebec feel that they are the majority yet they are dominated by
the minority English speaking Canadians. Thus, the quest for secession and constitutional change
is largely driven by anger. It is possible to make administrative changes and give the government
of Quebec more latitude to make decisions on matters affecting them. The importance of this
change is that the French-speaking Canadians will feel that their rights are respected and that
they are in charge of their destiny. (perhaps this is true but the question is whether there is a
likelihood of a settlement being finalized and this is concerned with constitutional settlement)
Although there are deep divisions, suspicions, and differences among the nationalities in
Quebec, it is reasonable to expect that a solution would be obtained in the near future. However,
the problems facing Quebec are more social than political, and that calls for the establishment of
THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY
9
a system that would adopt more social and less legal approach in providing a solution to the
problem. It is essential for the French-speaking Canadians to feel that they are in charge of their
affairs and also that they are not dominated over by the English speaking Canadians. After
establishing this environment, any other legal changes may be footed; but it is not possible for
legal changes to succeed when there is an environment of hostility.
References
Gagnon, A. G. (2009). The Case for Multinational Federalism: Beyond the all-encompassing
nation. Routledge. √
Lluch, J. (2010). How nationalism evolves: explaining the establishment of new varieties of
nationalism within the national movements of Quebec and Catalonia (1976–2005).
Nationalities papers, 38(3), 337-359. √
Niezen, R. (2016). Defending the land: Sovereignty and forest life in James Bay Cree society.
Routledge. √
Scott, C. (Ed.). (2011). Aboriginal autonomy and development in northern Quebec and Labrador.
UBC Press. √
Your effort here touches on some definite problems between French and English in Canada but
there is not very much analysis on recent attempts to conclude a constitutional settlement
and this is the central theme of the essay assignment. There is also a lack of proof for the
claims that you make. Both would be a way to greatly improve the essay. Read over the
question:
THE QUEBEC QUEST FOR AUTONOMY
10
Write an essay of approximately 2000 words (about 8 pages) explaining the factors that contributed to
the series of recent failures to reach a constitutional settlement that is agreeable to Quebec. Is it
reasonable to expect that an agreement can be reached?
and then ask yourself, does my essay even begin to examine any attempts to reach a
constitutional settlement and analyze these attempts with regard to the claims that you
make about the problems. Making certain that your essays comply with the explicit
instructions will normally produce much better essays.
60%
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
Unit 3 Study Guide
Unit 3 Study Guide
Site:
Course:
Book:
Printed by:
Date:
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
POLI 390: Canadian Federalism_ May2010
Unit 3 Study Guide
Sara AlMarashdeh
Monday, 1 October 2018, 8:22 AM MDT
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
1/20
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
Table of contents
Overview
Learning Objectives
Reading Assignment
Commentary
Centralization and Decentralization
The Longterm Trend
Explanations for Canada’s Evolution
The ProvinceBuilding Debate
Notes on Terms
Study Questions
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
2/20
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
Unit 3 Regionalism and Province
Building
Overview
Unit 3 continues the discussion from Unit 2 of changes in the responsibilities of the federal
and provincial governments. The level of analysis broadens in this unit, however, focusing
on the shifting balance of power within the Canadian federal system instead of on specific
government activities.
All federal systems possess a certain dynamic quality. As political institutions change and
adapt to new circumstances, the original alignment of political forces that produced a
federal union may be altered by events and forces totally unforeseen by that country’s
founders.
In Canada’s case, the federal system has evolved through various periods of centralization
and decentralization. The study of Canadian federalism, therefore, requires both a
knowledge of these periods and an explanation of the gradual erosion of federal dominance
over the provinces. Conflicts between different economic classes, strong regional
sentiments among the Canadian population, and “provincebuilding” are often cited as
factors that have contributed to a weakening of the federal government’s position. A fourth
factor, Quebec nationalism, will be examined separately in Unit 4.
TOP
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
3/20
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
Unit 3 Regionalism and Province
Building
Learning Objectives
When you have completed Unit 3, you should be able to achieve the following learning
objectives.
1. Identify and discuss distinct periods of centralization and decentralization in
Canadian history.
2. Discuss how Canada’s political evolution differs from that of most other federal
states.
3. Identify and critique the various theories that have been put forth to explain the
economic underdevelopment of the Atlantic region.
4. Discuss how economic underdevelopment in the four Atlantic provinces has
conditioned their response to federal government initiatives and shaped their approach
to federalprovincial relations.
5. Describe how the parliamentary system of government constrains the expression of
regional differences and regional discontent.
6. Describe how the failure of intrastate federal institutions to provide adequate
representation to regional interests led to the growing emphasis on interstate
federalism.
7. Discuss how and why Canadian regional development policies evolved the way they
did.
8. Describe how globalization will affect the political economy of Canada’s regions.
TOP
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
4/20
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
Unit 3 Regionalism and Province
Building
Reading Assignment
Commentary for Unit 3.
Chapter 4: “The Political Economy of Decentralization,” in Unfulfilled Union, 5th
ed., by Garth Stevenson, pp. 72–93.
Reading 1: “The Atlantic Region: The Politics of Dependency,” by Donald J.
Savoie, in the Reading File.
Chapter 13: “Regional Development : A Policy for All Seasons and All Regions,”
by Donald J. Savoie, in New Trends in Canadian Federalism, 2nd ed., edited by
Rocher and Smith, pp. 353–374.
TOP
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
5/20
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
Unit 3 Regionalism and Province
Building
Commentary
A constitution provides a framework for the operation of a federal system of government.
Even so, the original allotment of government responsibilities can change both formally and
informally through time. The balance of power within a federal system, therefore, is
constantly in flux, and it is this dynamic quality of federalism that makes governing difficult.
Those constitutions and political systems that can adapt to change tend to endure for long
periods of time; those that cannot are often discarded into the dustbin of history.
In terms of stability and longevity, the Canadian federal system compares quite favourably
to most other countries. The Canadian federal state has been in existence for 140 years
now; only the United States and Switzerland have had federal governments for longer than
that. Canada has not had any breakdown in its political regime, and there have been few
serious threats to the legitimacy of Canadian government institutions. This is not to say,
however, that Canadian federalism today is the same governmental arrangement
envisioned by John A. Macdonald and the other Fathers of Confederation in 1867! The
Canadian federal system has, of necessity, evolved and responded to new conditions and
political crises.
TOP
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
6/20
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
Unit 3 Regionalism and Province
Building
Centralization and Decentralization
At times, the balance of forces within Confederation has favoured the federal government
in Ottawa—known as periods of centralization. Periods of decentralization refer to those
times in which the power and influence of the provinces have increased relative to those of
the federal government. The literature in Canadian political science identifies several
historical periods in which the federal system has shifted between extreme political
centralization and varying degrees of political decentralization.
Perhaps the best description of the historical evolution of Canadian federalism is found in
the writings of James Mallory. In an oftenquoted essay, entitled “The Five Faces of
Federalism,”[1] Mallory identifies four periods of centralization: (1) the Macdonald era (1867
to approximately 1890), when the quasifederal powers of the federal government were
used quite often; (2) World War I; (3) World War II, when the imperative of defending the
country in time of national emergency made the division of powers virtually meaningless;
and (4) the immediate period following World War II (1945 to about 1960), when federal
spending power was used extensively to erect the Canadian social welfare state.
Periods of decentralization were linked by Mallory to the socalled “provincial rights era”
(1890–1914) and the interwar years (the 1920s and 1930s), when the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council consistently favoured the provinces in its interpretation of the
constitution; and the post1960 period, when demands for constitutional reform and greater
jurisdictional autonomy emanating from Quebec caused a reexamination of the roles of
both levels of government. Since the publication of the Mallory article, the decentralist trend
in Canadian federalism has continued with little interruption, fuelled by the demands of
Quebec and by the increasingly aggressive actions of some western Canadian provinces,
most notably Alberta and British Columbia.
How far has the current round of political decentralization gone? This situation is almost
impossible to assess, despite the oftenmade assertion that Canada possesses the most
decentralized federal system in the world. There is no easy way to measure the exact
degree of centralization and decentralization found in a federal state. Economists often look
to tax revenue and government spending as indicators of one government’s dominance
over the other.[2] Constitutional jurisdiction is only meaningful if a government possesses
the funds necessary to fulfil its responsibilities. There are few taxing and spending fields in
which the Canadian federal government possesses exclusivity.[3] Does this fact reveal a
decentralized federal state? Yes, on one level it does, but federalism is a complicated
system that works on many levels simultaneously. Viewing federalism in terms of a giant
pendulum swinging back and forth does not always conform to reality. For example, it is
possible for a government to compensate for a loss of financial autonomy through the use
of its regulatory powers or some other policy instrument. In the end, everything could simply
cancel out. In the study of federalism, nothing is as simple as it appears at first glance!
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
7/20
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
Figure 3.1 The Evolution of Canadian Federalism 1867 to the Present
1
See J. R. Mallory, “The Fives Faces of Federalism,” in J. Peter Meekison, ed., Canadian
Federalism: Myth or Reality, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Methuen, 1971), pp. 55–65.
2
For an example of an economic analysis of the centralization/decentralization issue,
see T. J. Courchene, Economic Management and the Division of Powers (Studies of
the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for
Canada, #67, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), Chapter 2. For a
discussion of the limitations of measuring the degree of economic decentralization in
a federal state, see R. M. Bird, “Federal Finance in Comparative Perspective,” in
David Conklin, ed., Ottawa and the Provinces: The Distribution of Money and
Power (Toronto: Ontario Economic Council, 1985), pp. 137–177.
3
G. Stevenson, “The Division of Powers,” in R. D. Olling and M. W. Westmacott, eds.,
Perspectives on Canadian Federalism (Scarborough: Prentice-Hall Canada Inc.,
1988), pp. 35–60.
TOP
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
8/20
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
Unit 3 Regionalism and Province
Building
The Long-term Trend
Venturing opinions on the relative degree of centralization or decentralization in Canada
today can be an extremely imprecise exercise. Predicting the future evolution of Canadian
federalism is almost as foolhardy. Stepping back and using historical hindsight can produce
meaningful observations, however. In Canada’s case the longterm trend is clear (see
Figure 3.1). We are a much more decentralized federation today than when we started out
in 1867. While power has shifted from the federal government to the provinces, and back
again, the balance sheet clearly favours the provinces. John A. Macdonald’s famous
prediction that provincial governments would eventually wither and die has not been
fulfilled. Today, provinces are important and powerful actors in the Canadian federal
system.
What is interesting about the Canadian experience is that it runs directly counter to the
situation in almost all other federal states. During the post World War II era the role of the
national government increased considerably in some countries, notably the United States
and Australia.[1] This situation is normally attributed to such factors as the development of
the modern social welfare state, the application of Keynesian economics, a desire to create
a national industrial policy, and the technological revolution in transportation and
communication. But what makes Canada different? What has caused political centralization
throughout the world and political decentralization in our own federal state?
[1]
T. O. Heuglin, “Federalism in Comparative Perspective,” in R. D. Olling and M. W.
Westmacott, eds., Perspectives on Canadian Federalism (Scarborough: Prentice-Hall
Canada Inc., 1988), pp. 16–32.
TOP
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
9/20
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
Unit 3 Regionalism and Province
Building
Explanations for Canada’s Evolution
Perhaps the most difficult problem confronting students of Canadian politics is that of
providing an adequate explanation of the longterm attenuation of federal power.
Explanations of the evolution of Canadian federalism fall into four distinct schools of
thought focusing on: aspects of political economy, Canada’s regional character, province
building, and the influence of Quebec nationalism.
Writings in political economy stress the changing nature of the national economy, divisions
within various “class fractions,” and the shifting loyalties of different economic interests. An
example of this class analysis of the evolution of the Canadian federal system is found in
the assigned reading for this unit from the Stevenson text.
The second explanation of the evolution of Canadian federalism is sociological, and relates
to the nature of Canada’s federal society. Here the focus is placed on regionalism and on
the strong identification of Canadian citizens with the particular geographic area in which
they reside. Richard Vernon argues that in a federal system the loyalty of citizens is divided
between two different governments.[1] Should there be a shift in public sentiment,
identifying more with one government than another, then it is possible to envision a loss of
political legitimacy for a particular government and a change in the balance of power within
the federation.
Many observers argue that Canadians possess strong regional attachments. Historian J. M.
S. Careless, for example, has observed that Canadians define themselves primarily in
terms of “limited identities.”[2] According to this view, we see ourselves, first and foremost,
as members of distinct regional and provincial communities united under a federal system
of government. Careless argues that regional sentiments have long held prominence in
Canada (beginning well before Confederation) and today stand at the core of Canadian
national identity. This view coincides closely with former Prime Minister Joe Clark’s famous
description of Canada as a “community of communities.”
During the 1970s, several Canadian political scientists attempted to gather more scientific
evidence concerning the regional orientation of Canadians. They conducted a number of
public opinion surveys in conjunction with the National Election Study of 1974 and, later,
the 1977–79 deliberations of the Task Force on Canadian Unity.[3] Their findings are
extremely interesting. When asked to make a choice about primary identification, an
overwhelming number of those surveyed, outside of Quebec, saw themselves first and
foremost as “Canadians.” Yet, at the same time, the majority of the population (and
particularly those people living in the eastern and western peripheries) revealed a tendency
to see Canada as a composite of distinct regions and provinces, and themselves as
residents of these distinct regions or provinces. When asked to indicate which level of
government felt “closer” and had a greater “effect” on their daily lives, provincial
governments held a clear advantage in all cases except Ontario.
What are we to make of the polling data? Clearly, there is support for the Careless view that
Canadians define themselves in terms of “limited identities.” However, the idea of a region
seems to mean different things to different people. Some people identify with a local
geographic area (e.g., the Niagara region in Ontario), others see their region comprising a
combination of several provinces (e.g., the Canadian West or the Maritimes), and still
others view region and province as synonymous.
It must also be remembered that most of the polling data concerning regional
consciousness was assembled during a single decade. No systematic and scientific
sampling of regional sentiment was carried out before the 1970s and none has taken place
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
10/20
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
in the past several years. It is impossible, then, to prove any sort of trend. Did Canadians
think more in regional terms in 1974 than during the Depression or during John A.
Macdonald’s time? Has regional sentiment increased or decreased in the aftermath of the
patriation of the Canadian constitution in 1982? If it has increased, has it been at the
expense of a larger sense of Canadian nationalism? Lacking the appropriate data gathered
across time, it is simply impossible to offer a definitive opinion.
Further complicating the situation is the fact that the data reveals the impact of regionalism
as lacking uniformity across the population. Analysing the results of the 1974 National
Election Study, the team of Clark, Jensen, LeDuc, and Pammett concluded that ”regional
consciousness is highest among Canadians who are young, more highly educated, better
off, Englishspeaking, from metropolitan areas and smaller cities, uppermiddle class in
identification and geographically mobile.”[4] Essentially, regionalism impacts the greatest on
upperlevel socioeconomic groups—the country’s political and economic elite—while only
weakly or moderately affecting the mass of the population. The political importance of
regionalism increases when regional consciousness is first linked to a shared sense of
injustice (or historical grievance) and then given shape and focus by provincial political
leaders. According to Richard Simeon, the implications for the federal system can be great:
At the elite level, federalism . . . [confers] leadership on a set of leaders in provincial
governments who have vested interest in maintaining and strengthening the salience of
the regional dimension. The provincial governments do more than just respond to
demands from their populations. First, they respond to some groups more than others;
and, more important, they have, as complex organizations in their own right, certain
bureaucratic needs, especially the need to gain power, to enhance their status, and to
maintain their political support. So, of course, has the federal government. This is the
truth behind the common observation that somehow the interests of the public get lost
in federalprovincial discussions. Thus to maintain support, a provincial government is
motivated to accentuate the degree of internal unity, and to exaggerate the extent of
difference with Ottawa, and to divert political conflict onto an external enemy. They are
likely to stress issues in such a way that their internal divisions are minimized, and to
stress most those issues on which there is least internal disagreement. They are also
less likely to be concerned with the substance of issues, and more likely to be
concerned with those aspects of an issue with the greatest importance for them as
governments. They are less concerned with what is done than with questions like who
does it and who gets credit. One does not need to assume that provincial leaders are
foolish or evil, or that each will pursue the same policies. One simply has to recognize
the importance of certain wellknown characteristics of organizational behaviour. In this
sense the interests of a provincial government are quite different conceptually from the
interests of the residents of the province.[5]
[1]
R. Vernon, “The Federal Citizen,” in Olling and Westmacott, Perspectives on
Canadian Federalism, pp. 3–15.
[2]
J. M. S. Careless, “ ‘Limited Identities’ in Canada,” Canadian Historical Review
50, no. 1 (1969): 1–10.
[3]
For a summary and interpretation of the 1974 polling results see H. D. Clarke, J.
Jenson, L. LeDuc, and J. H. Pammett, Political Choice in Canada (Toronto: McGrawHill Ryerson, 1980). Another interesting discussion of regional political attitudes can
be found in Small Worlds: Provinces and Parties in Canadian Political Life, D. J.
Elkins and R. Simeon, eds. (Toronto: Methuen, 1980).
[4]
Clarke, Jenson, LeDuc, and Pammett, Political Choice in Canada, p. 37.
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
11/20
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
[5]
R. Simeon, “Regionalism and Canadian Political Institutions,” in J. Peter
Meekison, ed., Canadian Federalism: Myth or Reality (Toronto: Methuen, 1977), pp.
301–302. Used by permission, Nelson Canada.
TOP
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
12/20
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
Unit 3 Regionalism and Province
Building
The Province-Building Debate
Simeon’s observations point to the longstanding difficulty of sorting out the interrelationship
between federal government and federal society. In Canada, provincial governments “are
not simply the outgrowth or products of the environment and . . . they are not just
dependent variables in the political system. They can also be seen as independent forces,
which have some effects of their own: once established, they themselves come to shape
and influence the environment.”[1] The end result is the longterm enhancement of
provincial political and bureaucratic competence leading to an increase in the power and
prestige of the “provincial state” and greater federalprovincial competition over the
“legitimization” functions of government. The expansive and manipulative actions of
provincial governments are often cited as a third factor influencing the development of the
Canadian federal system.
In an influential article published in 1977, Alan Cairns introduces a more thorough and
comprehensive discussion of the theory of “provincebuilding” that analyses the interplay of
social and institutional forces within the Canadian federal system.[2] According to Cairns,
the evolution of the Canadian federal system is largely a reflection of a conscious attempt
on the part of provincial political leaders and provincial government bureaucracies to
expand their personal power and prestige at the expense of the federal government in
Ottawa. Not surprisingly given the explanations for Canada’s evolution provided earlier in
this commentary, not all students of Canadian federalism agree with Cairns’s analysis. An
essay published in 1984 by Young, Faucher, and Blais provides a critical review of the
fundamental assumptions underlying the provincebuilding theory and thus stands as an
important counterpoint to Cairns.[3] Even the most appealing explanatory theories need to
be examined carefully and, where necessary, challenged and debated. This is the essence
of academic study.
Federalism and Regionalism
One of the enduring features of the Canadian federal system is its distinct “regions.” The
concept of “region” is less arbitrary than that of a province, in that regions are typically
defined by enduring geographic and sociocultural characteristics. Unfortunately, no
consensus is found within the academic literature as to what variables should be used to
demarcate the boundaries of a region. Geographers differentiate regions on the basis of
physical features, such as landforms, climate, and vegetation. Sociologists define a region
by reference to linguistic and cultural communities. Economists often identify a region with
the existence of major economic growth centres within a nationstate. In political science,
regions are most often defined by the existence of political boundaries.
The regions in the “centre” of the country coincide with provincial boundaries (e.g., Quebec
and Ontario). In the case of the regions beyond the “centre,” the concept of “region”
comprises a clustering of provinces or territories. Although British Columbia has sometimes
been grouped with the Prairie provinces, convincing arguments have been made that its
distinct geographical, social, and economic circumstances warrant that British Columbia be
considered a region unto itself. The same could perhaps be said for Alberta, which has
much less in common with Saskatchewan and Manitoba today than it did fifty or a hundred
years ago.
The notion of “region” is important in discussing Canadian federalism, as tensions between
the subunits in the Canadian federal system increasingly play out along regional lines. The
primary regional tensions are between “the centre” and “the periphery” and between the
predominantly francophone region of Quebec and the anglophone regions of the country.
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
13/20
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
The tension between the francophone and anglophone regions of the country is discussed
in Unit 4; the tension between centre and the peripheries is the focus of the remainder of
this unit.
“Atlantic Canada” is an artificial concept since Newfoundland and Labrador (a separate
country until 1949) is quite different from the other three eastern provinces and traditionally
had little contact with them. Nonetheless, all four Atlantic provinces are sparsely populated,
far from major markets, and subject to the vicissitudes of a resourcebased economy.
Unlike other parts of Canada, they have received few immigrants in the last hundred years.
The Atlantic provinces concern themselves most with chronically high rates of
unemployment and the region’s lack of economic diversity. However, the capacity of
Atlantic Canada to devise its own economic development strategies is rather limited. The
first assigned reading by Donald Savoie attempts to explain why this is so.
The Savoie article is interesting because of its analytical approach. Working within the
framework of dependency theory, Savoie concludes that the Atlantic region’s heavy
reliance on federal fiscal transfers and bureaucratic expertise has seriously undermined the
ability of provincial governments to take independent action or to challenge federal program
initiatives. The Atlantic region has no provincial economic programs, only federal economic
programs provincially administered. As Savoie notes “federal costsharing permeates every
policy field, and every government department and agency concerned with both social and
economic development.”[4]
In the Atlantic region, fiscal, administrative, and political realities dictate a cautious and
pragmatic approach toward dealings with the federal government. As Savoie points out, the
positions adopted by the Atlantic provinces are often contradictory. On the one hand,
political leaders argue that a major reason for the region’s underdevelopment lies with the
discriminatory and poorly formulated policies and programs of the federal government. On
the other hand, the region is profoundly centralist, preferring the maintenance of a strong
central government armed with an array of policy tools and financial resources capable of
alleviating regional economic disparities.
Of course, the recent tendency of Newfoundland and Labrador to chart its own distinct
course in questions of economic development somewhat contradicts Savoie’s dependency
thesis. In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, a more aggressive stance in federal
provincial relations appears predicated on only a hope of future economic prosperity.
However, the province remains dependent on federal transfer payments and on federal
funding of the Hibernia oil project. Whether Newfoundland and Labrador will revert to more
traditional forms of intergovernmental behaviour under different political leadership remains
open to question.[5] Note that the term “Atlantic” refers to all four of the eastern provinces;
the term “Maritimes” refers only to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island.
The reason for this distinction is that Newfoundland and Labrador has a social, cultural, and
economic history that is distinct from the other three provinces.
Like the Atlantic provinces, the four western provinces also form a periphery of Canada.
The economy of western Canada is also primarily resource driven, but, unlike the situation
in the Atlantic region, the western region, particularly Alberta and British Columbia, is
relatively prosperous. Also unlike the Atlantic provinces, provincial governments in the West
have engaged in highly aggressive actions to diversify their own economies and reduce the
influence of the federal government. These efforts are made possible because of provincial
financial surpluses generated from resource rents. Unlike the Atlantic provinces, but like
Quebec, the western provinces have often been governed by parties with labels and
ideologies different from those that have held office at the federal level.
Within western Canada, the government of Alberta is associated with the most
comprehensive provincial economic plan. At the heart of Alberta’s strategy are efforts to
steer the provincial economy away from its dependence on oil and natural gas, to limit the
impact of external forces on the local economy, and to use the ownership of natural
resources to shift economic and political power westward.[6] The other western provinces
have committed themselves to economic strategies comparable in intent to those of
Alberta. They, too, see their salvation in increased provincial control over natural resources
and in the further upgrading of the resource and agricultural sectors within their boundaries.
The assigned reading by Roger Gibbins places the western provinces’ current discontent
with federal economic policy and the rise of western alienation into a wider historical
context. In Gibbins’s view, past federalprovincial disputes over such matters as energy
pricing have eroded the federal government’s legitimacy in the region. This, coupled with
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
14/20
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
the economic strength of the West and the failure of intrastate institutions to provide
adequate representation of western interests have contributed to the growing emphasis on
interstate federal institutions.
The second article by Savoie examines the historical evolution of regional development in
Canada. While neither level of government is specifically charged with the responsibility of
decreasing regional disparities, the federal government has taken the lead in this highly
complex policy area. Savoie argues that federal fiscal restraint coupled with a global
economy will result in increasing regional fragmentation and decentralization. As the key
areas of education and infrastructure are provincial responsibility, differing provincial fiscal
capacity will thus result in further regional inequities.
It is clear that political leaders in Canada cannot ignore regional issues. The fragmentation
of the political party system in the 1990s is but one legacy of the regional tensions in the
Canadian federal system. Some observers go so far as to warn that the increasing
balkanization of Canada will lend support to separatist movements that will lead to the
disintegration of the country. These movements toward selfdetermination are the subject of
the next two units.
[1]
Simeon, “Regionalism and Canadian Political Institutions,” p. 297.
[2]
A. C. Cairns, “The Governments and Societies of Canadian Federalism,” Canadian
Journal of Political Science 10: 4 (1977): 695–725.
[3]
R. A. Young, P. Faucher, and A. Blais, “The Concept of Province-Building: A
Critique,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 17: 4 (1984): 783–818.
[4]
D. J. Savoie, “The Atlantic Region: The Politics of Dependency,” in Olling and
Westmacott, Perspectives on Canadian Federalism, p. 296.
[5]
For an updated discussion of Newfoundland’s relations with Ottawa and the other
provinces, see D. M. Brown, “Sea-Change in Newfoundland: From Peckford to Wells,”
in R. L. Watts and D. M. Brown, eds., Canada: The State of the Federation 1990
(Kingston: Queen’s University, Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, 1990), pp.
199–229.
[6]
For a discussion of Alberta’s economic development strategy, see J. Richards and
L. Pratt, Prairie Capitalism: Power and Influence in the New West (Toronto:
McClelland and Stewart, 1979), especially chapter 9.
TOP
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
15/20
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
Unit 3 Regionalism and Province
Building
Notes on Terms
accumulative function: A term coined by American political economist James O’Connor
(and used by Savoie and Stevenson) to describe government policies, actions, or both, that
directly contribute to the accumulation of private sector (i.e., business) profits.
attenuate: This term is often associated with D. V. Smiley’s writings on the changing
balance of power within Confederation. Simply put, “attenuate” means to reduce, weaken,
or minimize the power and status of one level of government for the benefit of another.
balkanize: A term used to describe the degeneration of a country into a group of hostile and
warring political units without any sense of common purpose. Critics of political
decentralization often warn of the inevitable “balkanization” of the country and the potential
breakup of the Canadian federal system.
bourgeoisie: A term used in political economy to refer to the upper classes, particularly
those who control or manage large business enterprises.
branch plant: A business that is a subsidiary of a foreignowned corporation. For example,
Ford Canada is a branch plant of its Americanbased parent corporation.
centrifugal forces: Those events and activities that promote political decentralization in a
federal state.
centripetal forces: Those events and activities that promote political centralization in a
federal state.
cleavage: A political science term for a division within society producing long term political
conflict. In Canada, the most important cultural cleavage is the division between English
and Frenchspeaking Canadians. Stevenson uses the term to help explain different class
factions and the different interests of the Canadian manufacturing, agricultural, and
resource sectors.
comprador faction: A term used in political economy to refer to the people who manage and
operate the branch plants of foreign multinational corporations.
dependency: The term “dependency” is often used to explain the underdevelopment of the
Atlantic region. Radical political economists and neoclassical economists use the term
differently, however. Political economists, such as Ralph Matthews, see dependency as
synonymous with the systematic exploitation of one region of the country by another. This
behaviour is considered to be in the interest of the dominant capitalist class. Neoclassical
economists, such as Thomas Courchene, view dependency in terms of the overreliance of
slowgrowth areas on government largesse. In this view, dependency is considered
contradictory to free market economics and a form of economic inefficiency.
elite: Elites are small groups of people who exercise power in a society. On one level, an
elite can be defined as those people who possess decisionmaking authority or power.
Members of parliament, for example, are part of Canada’s political elite. Similarly, the
presidents and chief executive officers of major corporations constitute Canada’s economic
elite. One can also speak of religious, military, bureaucratic, cultural, or academic elites.
federal society: A society in which group diversity is territorially based. See the commentary
for Unit 1.
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
16/20
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
hinterland: An economic and geographic term for an outlying area that provides resources
to a metropolitan centre. In Canada, the western and Atlantic regions can be considered
economic hinterlands of Ontario and Quebec. Hinterland status can lead to feelings of
exploitation, and to manifestations of political alienation.
legitimization function: A term used in political economy to refer to government policies,
actions, or both, which seek to reinforce the legitimacy of the state in the eyes of the
population. Legitimization functions may involve the provision of social welfare services to
the public, or the regulation and restriction of business activities in order to support some
common public good. In the Canadian federal system, policies that seek to enhance state
legitimacy have led to government expansion, the duplication of services, and intense
political competition between the federal government and the provinces. The idea of
legitimization is tied directly to the concept of province building.
National Policy: A set of interrelated policies enacted by the government of John A.
Macdonald in order to increase Canadian economic prosperity and maintain Canada’s
independence from the United States. These policies included western territorial
expansion, the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the encouragement of immigration
and settlement of the West, the creation of a wheat economy, and the erection of a tariff
wall around Canada.
neoclassical economics: An economic approach (consistent with liberal economic thought)
which holds that economic decisions should only be made according to demands of the
free market. Neoclassical economists believe all forms of government intervention are
unnatural and result in economic inefficiency.
political economy: The study of the relationship between politics and economics. One noted
political economist, Robert Gilpin, offers this perspective on the relationship:
On the one hand, politics largely determines the framework of economic activity and
channels it in directions intended to serve the interests of dominant groups; the exercise of
power in all its forms is a major determinant of the nature of an economic system.
On the other hand, the economic process itself tends to redistribute power and wealth, it
transforms the power relationships among groups. This in turn leads to a transformation
of the political system, thereby giving rise to a new structure of economic relationships.[1]
region: A region is a homogeneous area with physical and cultural characteristics distinct
from those of neighbouring areas.
regionalism: Regionalism refers to personal identification with a particular region; in other
words, a perception of belonging to a region, or a sense of regional consciousness among
the general population or certain sections of the population.
Triple E Senate: A proposal for Senate reform advocated by the government of Alberta and
popular throughout western Canada. The “Triple E” proposal calls for an elected Senate,
with equal representation from each province, and with effective powers.
western alienation: Western alienation is best seen as a political ideology of regional
discontent. Western alienation encompasses a sense of historical grievance against the
perceived exploitation of the West by Central Canada. It also involves a sense of isolation
or estrangement from the centres of economic and political power, and a belief that the
West is systematically ignored in national decisionmaking. Western alienation has been
manifested in different ways at different times. During the 1920s and 1930s regional
discontent was expressed in the formation of a number of westernbased protest parties,
such as the Progressives. During the 1970s, strong and aggressive provincial governments
became the outlet for western alienation. During the 1980s, western alienation provided the
impetus for the formation of the Reform Party, which later became the Canadian Alliance,
and then merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form a new Conservative Party.
[1]
R. Gilpin, US Power and the Multinational Corporation: The Political Power of
Foreign Direct Investment (New York: Basic Books, 1975), pp. 21–22.
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
17/20
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
TOP
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
18/20
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
Unit 3 Regionalism and Province
Building
Study Questions
When you have read the assigned reading and the commentary, test your understanding of
the material by answering the following study questions. You will find it helpful to write out
your answers in full sentences or a brief paragraph. If you have difficulty, review the
relevant material. If you still cannot answer the question, please contact your tutor for
assistance.
1. a. What has been the general trend in the evolution of Canadian federalism?
(Commentary)
b. How does the Canadian trend differ from that of most other federal states?
(Commentary)
Garth Stevenson—“The Political Economy of Decentralization”
2. How does the study of Canada’s political economy explain the changing balance of
power within Confederation? (Stevenson)
3. What assumptions about government and society form the basis for Stevenson’s political
economy perspective? (Stevenson)
4. Which Canadian province began the process of “provincebuilding”? (Stevenson)
5. a. What political and economic forces were unleashed by Macdonald’s National Policy?
(Stevenson)
b. How did the National Policy affect the role and behaviour of provincial governments?
(Stevenson)
6. How did the Great Depression of the 1930s change the political economy of Canadian
federalism? (Stevenson)
7. How did World War II alter the institutional loyalty of different “class fractions”? Which
level of government became the net beneficiary of these changes? (Stevenson)
8. How did the postwar integration of the Canadian and American economies influence the
evolution of Canadian federalism? (Stevenson)
9. What accounts for the revival of “centripetal forces” within Confederation during the late
1970s and early 1980s? (Stevenson)
Savoie—“The Atlantic Region: The Politics of Dependency”
10. What is dependency theory? Provide examples of how it is used to explain
underdevelopment in Atlantic Canada. (Savoie)
11. What is the neoclassical understanding of why there is underdevelopment in Atlantic
Canada? (Savoie)
12. What are the critiques of both the dependency and neoclassical theories of economic
underdevelopment? (Savoie)
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
19/20
10/1/2018
Unit 3 - Study Guide
13. What difficulties do the Atlantic provinces face in designing and implementing economic
policies independently from the federal government? (Savoie)
14. Given its economic problems, what explanations are given as to why the Maritimes are
not fertile ground for radical politics? (Savoie)
15. What accounts for the different approach to federalprovincial relations adopted by
Newfoundland and Labrador? (Commentary; Savoie)
Savoie: “Regional Development: A Policy for All Seasons”
16. What purpose and what problems were associated with the variety of regional
development initiatives undertaken in the postwar years? Write the programs out as a
table, with the name of the initiative, its purpose, and the problems it ran into. (Savoie)
17. Why does regional development require close federalprovincial cooperation? (Savoie)
18. How will globalization affect regionalism in Canada? (Savoie)
TOP
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2203
20/20
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
Unit 2 Study Guide
Unit 2 Study Guide
Site:
Course:
Book:
Printed by:
Date:
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
POLI 390: Canadian Federalism_ May2010
Unit 2 Study Guide
Sara AlMarashdeh
Monday, 1 October 2018, 8:21 AM MDT
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
1/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
Table of contents
Overview
Learning Objectives
Part 2.1 Confederation
Part 2.2 The Constitution and the Game of Politics
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
2/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
Unit 2 The Origins of Canadian
Federalism
Overview
Unit 2 begins a discussion of the historical development of Canadian federalism. To
understand the evolution of the federal system, however, it is first necessary to explore the
creation of Canada’s federal constitution and the original objectives of the Fathers of
Confederation.
Part 2.1 focuses on the factors that pushed the British North American colonies in the
direction of federal union. Part 2.2 explores the distribution of legislative powers in the
Canadian constitution.
TOP
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
3/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
Unit 2 The Origins of Canadian
Federalism
Learning Objectives
When you have completed Unit 2, you should be able to achieve the following learning
objectives.
Part 2.1 Confederation
1. Explain why Confederation is considered the most important political event in the history
of Canada.
2. Outline the nature of economic activity, government, society, and politics in the British
North American colonies before Confederation.
3. Identify and discuss the historical events that led Central Canada and the Maritimes to
consider the idea of a federal union.
4. Outline the arguments advanced in both the Maritimes and French Canada by
proponents and opponents of the Confederation agreement.
5. Describe and critique the process by which Confederation was negotiated and
implemented.
6. Summarize the final terms of the federal union.
7. Identify and discuss the major governmental and political issues left unresolved by the
Fathers of Confederation.
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
4/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
Part 2.2 The Constitution and the Game of Politics
8. Identify and discuss the criteria used to determine the final distribution of legislative
powers between the federal government and the provinces.
9. Identify and describe the major constitutional powers assigned to the federal government
and the provinces.
10. Discuss how and why the distribution of government powers has changed over time.
11. Compare the different visions of the framers of the Canadian and American
constitutions.
12. Give reasons why the Canadian and American federal systems evolved in such
different ways.
TOP
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
5/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
Unit 2 The Origins of Canadian
Federalism
Part 2.1 Confederation
Reading Assignment
Commentary for Part 2.1.
Chapter 2: “Origins and Objectives of Canadian Confederation,” in Unfulfilled
Union, 5th ed., by Garth Stevenson, pp. 20–42.
Commentary
Confederation is the single most important political event in Canada’s history. Most
Canadians know something about Sir John A. Macdonald and his national dream, yet there
is little real comprehension of exactly why a federal form of government was chosen by the
Fathers of Confederation, how federalism was intended to work, and what written and
unwritten understandings were part of the original Confederation agreement.
What Did Confederation Accomplish?
Confederation accomplished a number of important goals as listed below:
Confederation united three British colonies—Canada, Nova Scotia, and New
Brunswick—into a single political unit, divided the old province of Canada into the
new provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and laid the basis for the inclusion of the
other British North American colonies in the new Dominion of Canada.
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
6/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
Confederation established an entirely new form of government organization,
grafting federalism onto a British parliamentary system of government.
Confederation provided a better means of managing relations between Canada’s
two founding peoples—the English and the French.
Confederation gave French Canadians living in Quebec their own legislature and
the constitutional powers necessary to preserve the French language and culture.
Confederation reduced the American military threat and laid the basis for
Canada’s future expansion into the prairies and British Columbia.
Confederation made possible the establishment of a transcontinental economy
and the means to promote Canada’s future economic growth.
Finally, Confederation established a principle of sharing both the costs and benefits
of nationhood, a uniquely Canadian approach to governing that stresses the
redistribution of wealth between different regions and provinces.
Confederation, however, did not solve every Canadian problem and the new constitution—
the British North America Act—was far from a perfect document. It failed to accomplish a
number of objectives:
Confederation failed to provide Canada with total independence from Britain. Full
constitutional autonomy came slowly over the next century, and it was not until
1982 that the constitution was finally patriated and a domestic amending formula
was adopted.
Confederation failed to provide Canada with a fully written constitution, leaving
many of Canada’s constitutional practices (including the procedure by which the
BNA Act itself was to be amended) subject to custom and convention.
Confederation failed to create an equal relationship between Frenchspeaking and
Englishspeaking Canadians. Frenchspeaking minorities outside of Quebec
received no constitutional protection. Even within Quebec, Englishspeakers
continued to dominate the economy.
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
7/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
Confederation did not completely resolve the problem of combining majority rule
with respect for the interests of smaller provinces or regions. In particular, the
Senate proved to be totally ineffective in this regard.
The creation of Canada and the United States can be contrasted in terms of democratic
legitimacy. In the United States, a constitution was drafted, several years after the war of
independence, through the convening of a special constitutional convention of the people’s
delegates. It did not take effect until each of the thirteen original states had approved it. In
Canada, Confederation was a political deal worked out (somewhat unexpectedly) by
political leaders from several British colonies with no specific popular mandate for the
project. The British government used its considerable influence on behalf of the project.
The final agreement was submitted for approval to only one legislature and faced serious
popular opposition in the Maritimes and in Quebec. It was probably supported by most
people in Ontario, while opinion in Quebec and New Brunswick was probably divided. Nova
Scotia was forced into Confederation against the will of most of its people.
PreConfederation British North America
To understand the forces that led the united Canadas, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick
into federal union, it is necessary to first consider the nature of British North America before
Confederation. Unit 1 pointed out that federalism represents a rather delicate balance, as
previously independent political units must possess some forms of commonality while
striving to preserve and protect certain diversities.
Unfortunately, the assigned reading from the Stevenson text fails to explain fully the distinct
character of the British North American colonies. It is, therefore, useful to review briefly the
situation previous to 1867.
Before Confederation, British North America comprised five separate colonies: Canada
(comprising Canada East and Canada West; or what is now known as Quebec and
Ontario), Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland (the latter
two colonies did not enter Confederation until 1873 and 1949, respectively). In each colony,
responsible government was in its final stage of development. Settlement patterns had
resulted in each colony having its own ethnic and religious mix. The colony of Canada was
united politically, but divided culturally and linguistically between its English and French
speaking populations. Economic activity varied between the Maritime concentration on
wood, wind, and water, and the merchant, manufacturing, and farming operations of
Central Canada. Most important in the context of the midnineteenth century, each colony
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
8/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
was geographically separate from the others. Communication took place primarily by ship,
and the travel time between colonies was considerable.
Map of PreConfederation British North America
From Canada: Unity in Diversity, by P. G. Cornell, J. Hamelin, F. Ouellet, and M.
Trudel. (Toronto: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston of Canada, Ltd., 1967), p. 234.
Perhaps the best academic study of the Confederation period was carried out by historian
Donald Creighton for the Royal Commission on DominionProvincial Relations (the Rowell
Sirois Commission) in 1939.[1] The final report of the Commission summarized the pre
Confederation situation in British North America as follows:
The Maritimes looked to the sea. They concentrated on their timber and fish, their
shipbuilding and their carrying trade. Their own hinterland and the vast continent behind
them were little in their thoughts. The Canadas had developed a thriving export trade in
timber and wheat. The most active spirits, however, took these outlets for granted and
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
9/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
faced inward on the continent. For them, the St. Lawrence water system was not so
much a political boundary as a great highway leading into the heart of the continent.
From the beginning, the Canadians had dreamed of a future when a trade of continental
proportions would pour along their highway. The other British colonies had little place in
their plans for the St. Lawrence as one of the great trade routes of the world. And the
concerns of the Red River and the Pacific Coast settlements were entirely foreign to
those of Canada and the Maritimes. The separate preoccupations of the colonies had
led them in opposite directions emphasizing, in social terms, their physical isolation
from one another.[2]
In the context of the nineteenth century, the political union of the British colonies was
viewed almost as improbable as a presentday union between Canada and Australia. The
colonies were not only miles apart, in many respects they were also worlds apart. Although
they shared a common British ancestry and common British political institutions, their
historical and social evolution remained separate and distinct. Strong local identities
predominated. Until the 1850s the idea of political union was never seriously contemplated
by politicians and certainly not by ordinary citizens.
Factors Leading to Confederation
What caused the British North American colonies to think about the idea of a federal
political union? For some federal scholars, Confederation serves as almost a perfect case
study of the creation of a federal state. This situation is well illustrated in the Stevenson
reading. However, before proceeding with the Stevenson text, it is best to pause and review
the material covered in Unit 1.
As was discussed in Unit 1, federalism results from a combination of factors, the most
important of which depends on the specific country and the specific circumstance. The
mostcited explanatory factors for federal union involve:
a desire to preserve cultural or social diversity and recognize and protect group or
community identities.
a desire to promote economic development, reduce the cost of government, or
pool economic risk.
a desire to provide for joint military protection, military expansion, or both.
a desire to fragment government authority and limit the power of the state over a
country’s citizens.
The assigned chapter by Stevenson discusses the social, economic, military, and political
factors that led to Confederation in 1867. Read this chapter carefully, then try to link the
historical material covered by Stevenson to the theoretical discussion in Unit 1. As you
read, jot down information relating to each factor, and then compile four separate lists for
reference and future study.
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
10/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
In addition to the general factors at play in the 1860s, it is also important to understand the
original objectives of specific regions or colonies when they entered into the Confederation
negotiations. Confederation was a political deal, but what were the objectives of each
Confederation partner? In the case of the Maritimes, strategic, economic, and
transportation concerns tended to predominate. In Central Canada, the overriding problem
related to a changing demographic balance, escalating political instability, and an inability of
existing political institutions to manage FrenchEnglish relations effectively. As Stevenson
suggests, these regional considerations can be closely related to the limited objectives of
particular economic interests operating in the colonies. Thus, Confederation can be
interpreted as the work of the various political and economic élites that dominated the
colonies in British North America.
Negotiating the Confederation Agreement
In developing an understanding of Canadian federalism, the process by which
Confederation was negotiated assumes equal importance with the factors that led to a
consideration of political union. Even today, process appears to be a particularly Canadian
preoccupation.
Intergovernmental discussions on Confederation began unexpectedly in September 1864
when representatives of the Great Coalition dropped in on a Charlottetown conference
called to consider the idea of Maritime union. Interest in the Central Canadian proposal for
a federal union led to further negotiations at Quebec City in November 1864 and a final
drafting session in London in 1866. All negotiations took place in private and no official
record of the deliberations exists today.
Only in the legislature of Canada was the final Confederation agreement put to a vote.
Referring to the deal as a “treaty” and “solemn pact,” Macdonald refused to entertain any
amendments to the new constitutional arrangement for fear that negotiations would have to
begin anew with the Maritime governments. In the cases of Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick, substantial public opposition to the idea of political union (focused primarily in
the port cities of Halifax and Saint John) left the final decision on Confederation in the
hands of the premier and the colonial office in Britain. As Stevenson points out, the concept
of Confederation was never directly put to a vote by the citizens of the colonies. This fact
both denied the federal system democratic legitimacy and, at the same time, established a
longstanding precedent that intergovernmental negotiations should be carried out without
public consultation and input.
A number of political tradeoffs underlay the final Confederation settlement. These trade
offs are implied, but not clearly outlined, in the Stevenson reading.
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
11/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
The federal government’s powers related to the great matters of the day: military defence,
nationbuilding and territorial expansion, and economic development. Provincial powers
related to local concerns, matters that were primarily church (not government)
responsibilities, and activities basic to the cultural and linguistic preservation of the English
and Frenchspeaking communities.
In entering into negotiations, Sir John A. Macdonald showed a decided preference for what
he called a “legislative union” (in other words, a unitary system of government). This view
was inspired by Macdonald’s negative assessment of the American federal system and by
his desire for a strong government capable of forging a national economy and pursuing
westward expansion. Opposition from Quebec members of the Great Coalition and from
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia delegates at the Quebec Conference necessitated a
pragmatic compromise. While Macdonald finally accepted a federal system of government,
it was one in which the cards were decidedly stacked in favour of the federal government in
Ottawa. Among the special quasifederal powers assigned to the federal government were:
the right to legislate in all matters relating to “peace, order, and good government
of Canada”
the right to raise money by any “mode or system of taxation”
the right to appoint the judges to the most important courts in each province
the right to assume control of “works for the general advantage of Canada”
the right to appoint LieutenantGovernors in the provinces and instruct these
LieutenantGovernors to withhold royal assent to provincial legislation, or “reserve”
it for a final decision by the federal government
the right to disallow provincial legislation within one year of its passage
The gains for the Maritimes were mostly economic. Terms of the Confederation settlement
included the assumption of existing colonial debts by the new central government and the
guaranteed construction of the Intercolonial Railway to link the Maritimes to markets in
Central Canada. An additional concession involved creating an appointed Senate
apportioned on the basis of equal regional representation. This concession was intended to
offset, at least in part, the political power of Central Canada in the new House of Commons.
Confederation provided French Canadians with their own government in the Province of
Quebec and constitutional jurisdiction over matters relating to language, culture, religion,
and education. Special constitutional guarantees protected existing religious school
systems, Protestant as well as Catholic, and Quebec kept its system of French civil law.
French and English were to be the official languages of the federal parliament, the federal
courts, and the legislature and courts of Quebec, but bilingualism was not provided for in
the other provinces. This duality was intended to provide both linguistic minorities (the
English in Quebec and the French in the rest of the country) a limited form of constitutional
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
12/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
protection. However, much of the tension between English and Frenchspeaking
Canadians since 1867 has revolved around a continuing debate concerning the adequacy
of these constitutional provisions.
Notes on Terms
The Act of Union: The 1841 act of the British parliament that united the colonies of Upper
and Lower Canada into a single political unit (Canada) and two administrative units
(Canada East and Canada West). Representation in the new legislature was evenly divided
between the predominately Englishspeaking Canada West and the predominately French
speaking Canada East, despite the fact that the majority of the population lived in Canada
East.
British North America Act: The act of the British parliament that united the colonies of
British North America and outlined Canada’s federal form of government. In 1982 the ability
to alter this document was “patriated” to Canada and the document was renamed The
Constitution Act.
compact theory: A historical interpretation of Confederation that sees federal union as the
product of a contractual agreement among provincial governments, or among the two
founding peoples. According to the compact theory of Confederation, constitutional change
can only take place with the unanimous agreement of the original Confederation partners.
constitution: A constitution is a document that contains “the rules of the political game.” Put
more formally, it is the set of fundamental laws, customs, and conventions within which
government is exercised in a state. Federalism requires a formal written constitution with
the division of powers clearly spelled out in a single document.
constitutional convention (constituent assembly): A constitutional convention is a meeting of
delegates expressly selected to formulate a constitution, or to amend the existing one. In
the summer of 1787 the Americans held such a meeting in order to draft a new constitution.
This meeting was followed by a process of ratification by the states.
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
13/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
The Durham Report: The Durham Report is named after its author, Lord Durham. In the
aftermath of the rebellions of 1837 in Central Canada, Durham recommended the granting
of responsible government, but he linked it to the political unification of Upper and Lower
Canada. The intent of this action was to speed the assimilation of French Canadians into
the EnglishCanadian population. The Durham Report was published in 1839 and laid the
basis for the Act of Union of 1841.
The Great Coalition: The Great Coalition was formed in the legislature of the United
Canadas in 1864. The coalition brought into a single government the leaders of the three
largest political parties—John A. Macdonald of the Conservatives, GeorgesEtienne Cartier
of the Parti Bleu, and George Brown of the Grits. The aim of the coalition was to end the
political deadlock in Central Canada and create a new political entity encompassing all the
British North American colonies.
Grits: This is the popular name given to the progressive members of the Upper Canadian
Reform Party (the forerunner of the presentday Liberal Party). The strength of this party lay
with the socalled “agrarian radicals” of Southwestern Ontario. George Brown, one of the
Fathers of Confederation, led most of the Grits (or Clear Grits as they were also called) into
the Great Coalition of 1864.
legislative union: This was Sir John A. Macdonald’s preferred system of government.
Essentially, legislative union is another term for a unitary system of government, such as
England and Scotland shared after 1707.
Parti Bleu: This moderately conservative, churchsupported party was led by George
Etienne Cartier. The Parti Bleu was the FrenchCanadian equivalent of the Conservative
Party in Canada West and a frequent coalition partner with Sir John A. Macdonald. After
Confederation, the Parti Bleu formally merged into Macdonald’s national Conservative
Party.
Parti Rouge: The Parti Rouge represented the more radical stream of political thought in
French Canada. Its leader, A. A. Dorion, vigorously opposed the Confederation scheme of
Macdonald and Cartier. After Confederation the Parti Rouge merged with the Clear Grits of
Ontario to form the Liberal Party of Canada.
quasifederal powers: A group of special constitutional powers assigned to the federal
government that allow it to modify, displace, or influence provincial jurisdiction through
unilateral action.
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
14/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
Quebec Resolutions: These were the product of the Quebec Conference of November
1864. This conference brought together the representatives of the Great Coalition, Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland for a formal discussion of
the concept of federal union. The seventytwo Quebec Resolutions outlined in draft form
the government system that was eventually embodied in the British North America Act.
reciprocal trade agreement or reciprocity: The name given to the free trade agreement
between the United States and the British North American colonies. This arrangement went
into force in 1854 and was ended by the United States in 1866. The termination of the
Reciprocity Treaty, coupled with British ending of imperial trading preferences, encouraged
the Maritimes to look to Central Canada for new markets for their fish, lumber, and coal.
rep by pop: The determination of representation in the legislature based on the size and
distribution of the population.
responsible government: The constitutional principle (associated with a British
parliamentary system of government) that the executive should be elected and remain in
office only as long as it can enjoy the support of the legislature.
Study Questions
When you have read the assigned reading and the commentary, test your understanding of
the material by answering the following study questions. You will find it helpful to write out
your answers in full sentences or a brief paragraph. If you have difficulty, review the
relevant materials. If you still cannot answer the question, please contact your tutor for
assistance.
1. What is the political significance of Confederation? (Commentary;
Stevenson)
2. What other political events were happening throughout the world when
Canadians first began to consider a federal union? (Stevenson)
3. a. How did the economies of the British North American colonies differ
before Confederation? (Commentary)
b. What evidence is there (if any) of the existence of a federal society
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
15/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
before the establishment of a federal government in British North
America? (Commentary)
4. a. What political crisis confronted Central Canada in the late 1850s and
early 1860s? (Stevenson)
b. What political options were considered in an effort to alleviate the
crisis? (Stevenson)
c. Why were the members of the Great Coalition attracted to the concept
of federal union and territorial expansion? (Stevenson)
5. What caused the Maritimes to consider the idea of political union with
Central Canada? (Stevenson)
6. a. Which economic interests endorsed the concept of political union?
(Stevenson)
b. What did these economic interests hope to gain from Confederation?
(Stevenson)
7. a. What type of political arrangement was Sir John A. Macdonald’s first
preference? (Commentary; Stevenson)
b. What caused Macdonald to alter his position? (Commentary;
Stevenson)
8. What did the Maritime region gain from Confederation? (Commentary;
Stevenson)
9. What did the French-Canadian population gain from Confederation?
(Commentary)
10. Who opposed the Confederation settlement? What formed the basis of
this opposition? (Stevenson)
11. According to the 1867 constitution, what was to be the position of the
federal government and what was to be the position of the provinces in
the Canadian federation? (Stevenson)
12. How did this arrangement conform to the standard definition of a federal
system of government? (Stevenson)
13. What are the quasifederal powers held by the federal government?
(Commentary; Stevenson)
14. What was missing from the 1867 constitution? (Commentary)
15. What important political issues were left unresolved by the Fathers of
Confederation? (Stevenson
16. Why did the Confederation settlement lack democratic legitimacy?
(Commentary; Stevenson)
17. What was wrong with the process by which Confederation was
negotiated? (Stevenson; Commentary)
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
16/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
[1]
See D. G. Creighton, British North America at Confederation (Ottawa: The King’s
Printer, 1939).
[2]
Quoted from The RowellSirois Report/Book I, D. V. Smiley, ed. (Toronto:
McClelland and Stewart, 1963), p. 10.
TOP
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
17/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
Unit 2 The Origins of Canadian
Federalism
Part 2.2 The Constitution and the Game of Politics
Reading Assignment
Commentary for Part 2.2.
Appendix 1: “Constitution Act, 1867,” in Unfulfilled Union, 5th ed., by Garth
Stevenson, pp. 287–295.
Commentary
Central to any federal system is a division of legislative powers entrenched in a written
constitution. A knowledge of the federal division of powers is therefore essential to the
study of Canadian federalism and the actions of political leaders. The division of powers
determines (at least formally) the nature of the federal system and the balance of power
between the two levels of government and thus the relative power of various political
actors. It should be considered analogous to a “program,” spelling out the positions of the
“players” in the federalprovincial “game.”
The original distribution of powers established at the time of Confederation is outlined in the
abridged version of the Constitution Act, 1867, found in Appendix 1 of the Stevenson text.
When examined more than one hundred years after Confederation, and from the
perspective of someone without legal training, the division of powers can prove difficult to
read. The terminology is complicated, and few of the enumerated headings appear to
translate easily into the presentday functions of government. To make things even worse,
the distribution of legislative responsibilities contained in the Canadian constitution has
undergone informal change over the years. Rather than federal and provincial powers
being isolated in watertight compartments, circumstances have caused jurisdictions to
become entangled, with both levels of government sharing responsibility for some aspects
of government operation.
The main task in reviewing the Constitution Act is to sort out federal and provincial
responsibilities in terms of the different functions performed by governments. One criterion
that was used to determine the distribution of legislative powers in Canada is the concept of
“externalities.” Simply put, an externality is a spillover, or overlap. The avoidance of
externalities serves as one of the criteria that have determined the distribution of legislative
powers in Canada. As a general rule, governments should not be given powers that easily
allow them to affect the residents of other constituent units. In Canada’s case, the
avoidance of externalities justifies federal control of matters that affect two or more
provinces: for example, interprovincial transportation, money and banking, or interprovincial
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
18/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
trade. Similarly, in Canada it is generally accepted that citizens living in different areas of
the country should be allowed freedom of choice in policy areas that are “local or private in
nature.”
To ensure that the federal government would maintain its dominant position, the framers of
the Canadian constitution included a number of provisions that centralized political power in
Ottawa. The first was the power of reservation. This provision allows the Lieutenant
Governor of any province to pass on to the federal government the responsibility of giving
or refusing assent to provincial legislation. The second provision, the power of
disallowance, allows the federal cabinet to annul any piece of provincial legislation within
one year of its passage. The third provision, declaratory power, allows the federal
parliament to pass legislation proclaiming a local work or undertaking “for the general
advantage of Canada.” This enables the federal government to regulate various physical
entities, such as canals and uranium mines, in the national interest even if they fall within
the boundaries of a province.
Disallowance and reservation were used frequently in the early years of Confederation,
particularly on western Canadian legislation. Often the mere threat of invoking this power
was enough to pressure recalcitrant provinces to toe the federal government line. As the
power of the provinces has increased, the legitimacy of the federal government to use
these provisions has decreased. Disallowance has not been used since 1943; reservation
was last used in 1961.
It is interesting to note that while the framers of the American and Canadian constitutions
had diametrically opposed goals, both federal systems ended up developing in the exact
opposite direction that their framers had intended. These systems are a fascinating study of
contrasts because their historical development is so different. Remember to use the study
questions to guide your reading. A more detailed explanation of the evolution of Canadian
federalism follows in later units.
Notes on Terms
concurrent powers: Legislative responsibilities that are assigned by the constitution to both
levels of government. In Canada’s case, immigration, agriculture, pensions, and the export
of natural resources are designated matters of concurrent jurisdiction.
constitution: A constitution is a document that contains the “rules of the political game.” Put
more formally, it is the set of fundamental laws, customs, and conventions providing the
framework within which government is exercised in a state. Federalism requires a formal
written constitution with the division of powers clearly spelled out in a single document.
The Constitution Act: Canada’s core constitutional document (known until 1982 as the
British North America Act).
declaratory power: This quasifederal power allows the federal parliament to pass
legislation declaring a local work to be “for the general advantage of Canada.” This power
enables the federal government to regulate various physical entities in the national interest.
disallowance: This quasifederal power allows the federal cabinet to annul any piece of
provincial legislation within one year of its passage. Disallowance was used frequently in
the early years of Confederation, but has not been used since 1943.
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
19/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
enumerated powers: An enumerated power (or heading) is an area of government authority
assigned exclusively to one government, or the other, or both, by the constitution. The
enumerated powers in the Canadian constitution can be found in Sections 91 through 95 of
the Constitution Act.
externalities: Externality is a word often used in the study of economics. Simply put, it
means spillover or overlap. Stevenson notes that the avoidance of externalities serves as
one of the criteria that have determined the distribution of legislative powers in Canada. As
a general rule, governments should not be given powers that easily allow them to affect the
residents of other constituent units. In Canada’s case, the avoidance of externalities
justifies federal control of matters that affect two or more provinces; for example,
interprovincial transportation, money and banking, or interprovincial trade.
paramountcy: The designation of which government takes precedence should federal and
provincial laws conflict in concurrent areas of responsibility. In Canada, the federal
government possesses paramountcy in the areas of immigration and agriculture, and in the
export of natural resources. Provinces possess paramountcy in the administration of
pensions.
reservation: This constitutional provision allows the LieutenantGovernor of any province to
evade the responsibility for giving or refusing royal assent to provincial legislation by
sending a provincial statute to the federal government for the latter to decide its fate. This
quasifederal power has not been invoked since 1961.
residual power: The provision of the constitution assigning to the federal government all
legislative matters not specifically mentioned in the enumerated headings.
Study Questions
When you have read the assigned reading and the commentary, test your understanding of
the material by answering the following study questions. You will find it helpful to write out
your answers in full sentences or a brief paragraph. If you have difficulty, review the
relevant material. If you still cannot answer the question, please contact your tutor for
assistance.
1. How is responsibility for a given policy area determined?
2. Which level of government possesses constitutional authority over each of the following
matters? (Constitution Act)
paying price supports to prairie wheat farmers
setting doctor’s fees
the settlement of political refugees
awarding oil leases
limiting automobiles imported from Japan
setting telephone rates
old age pension payments
television broadcasting
financial institutions
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
20/21
10/1/2018
Unit 2 - Study Guide
industrial relations
consumer protection
criminal law
the incorporation of companies
the construction of a new pulp and paper plant on a major inland waterway
taxing gasoline and cigarettes
university education
unemployment insurance
the sale and consumption of alcohol
3. Would it be possible and/or desirable to return to the type of federalism that the Fathers
of Confederation envisioned in the 1860s? Why, or why not? (Commentary)
TOP
https://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=2202
21/21
10/1/2018
Unit 1 - Study Guide
Unit 1 Study Guide
Unit 1 Study Guide
Site:
Course:
Book:
Printed by:
Date:
Faculty of Hu...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment