Representation by population would have left the Lower Canada minority in a subordinate position to Upper Canada. The provision for double majority would have made it virtually impossible to form a government at all while a federation between the two major provinces meant that each of the parts could very well have emerged as more powerful than the central authority. The option of granting the sections independence would have ensured the destruction of the "economic and commercial unity of the St.
Lawrence system. As already noted, the problem of defence also occupied the attention of many of the delegates. With the expectation that the United States would abrogate its reciprocal trade agreement with the colonies, as it actually did in , the provinces were presented with a strong economic motive for Confederation. Trade would now have to be re-oriented on an east-west basis and the Maritimes were confronted with the added burden of defending their coastline and fishing rights.
Galt argued that one of the chief benefits of Confederation would be an economy that did not have to rely on any one industry alone. With the addition of the Maritimes, Canada had the potential of becoming a seafaring power and with the removal of tariff barriers, provinces would benefit from the resulting increase in trade and would no longer be dependent on the threatened U.
There were, of course, also those who considered the economic benefits of Confederation as less than certain. Dorion could not see any particular advantage in having the Maritimes as a trading partner in that their products were similar to those of central Canada.
As he argued, "What trade could there be between two farmers who produce nothing but oats? For some, the entire Confederation scheme was "nothing more than a machination to further the interest of the Grand Trunk Railway. However, despite criticisms and reservations, it was the recommendations of the "chief architect," Macdonald, and his supporters that prevailed.
In view of the motivating factors and the response to these given by Macdonald and others, there can be little doubt that there was an important ideological element to the debate with Macdonald emerging as a consistent conservative-liberal.
Other solutions to the constitutional problem could have been entertained and provided. A more "republican" form of government would just as well have provided for an effective union and could just as easily have enjoyed the protection of Britain in matters of defence.
The rights of citizens and minorities could have been enshrined in a bill of rights. Neither of the foregoing came to pass. Macdonald did not approach the question of constitutional reform in a merely reactive or incrementalist manner; nor were the ideas upon which he based his actions mere rationalizations of what had been brought about by independent forces. The confederation proposal shows a definite connection to a set of ideas and values.
There is no doubt that in both tone and content, the "formal" constitution emerged as a very "practical" document, 67 but to infer from this that it formalized an expedient political compromise is to do it an injustice. The B. Act did not seek to advance any new principles or rights, but it did seek consciously to preserve the inherited rights and freedoms of a particular tradition and Macdonald showed a good understanding of the philosophical ideas which underlay that tradition.
The present condition of the Canadian nation is certainly not that envisioned by the founding Fathers. Their intention of providing for a strong central authority where the provinces would be subordinate to the national interest has not been realized. During one round of federal-provincial constitutional wrangling, the Premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Peckford, even went so far as to suggest that the real purpose of Confederation had been to set up a central government whose function was to provide for the interests of the provinces and to act at their behest!
As well, Quebec has ceased to be a province with a few peculiarities and has come to define itself as a completely distinct entity deserving of special status. The contemporary situation is one in which "the balance of power between federal and provincial governments, which the Fathers believed should incline decisively toward the Dominion, has now fallen sharply towards the provinces.
The role of Parliament as a legislative decision and law-making body has also suffered shrinkage and come to be assumed by the executive, bureaucracy and federal provincial bargaining units. The devolution of the central authority is now often attributed to the economic and social developments which took place subsequent to Confederation. As a result of these developments, it is argued, the intentions of the Fathers of Confederation have become largely irrelevant and their plan obsolete. Those who support this argument contend that the founders did not foresee the inevitable growth of the state with its attendant responsibilities.
Thus, they did not envision "the tremendous expansion of education, or the coming of the welfare state, with its pensions, family allowances, medical care, and various forms of insurance. The Fathers were further remiss in their "expectation that the great public improvements of the future would be federal enterprises such as transcontinental railways" rather than those areas of contemporary public enterprise such as schools, universities, roads and hospitals, which were assigned to the provinces.
As a result, "the whole trend of modern development has placed more power and responsibility in the hands of the provinces, and this inevitably means such a large degree of decentralization as to make the centralist scheme of the Fathers seem obsolete. The second line of revisionism deals with the cultural aspect of the Confederation agreement. Here it is argued that Confederation was in fact a union, or agreement, "between two cultures or nations" rather than a union of provinces.
Even though there is no substantial evidence to support this thesis in the pre-Confederation conferences and debates, so the argument goes, the agreement was of an extra-legal nature, "an unspoken moral commitment, which was meant to inform the whole union with its spirit. Creighton quarrels with these arguments not simply because he considers them historically inaccurate, but also because of the subtle attempts on the part of their protagonists to rewrite history to suit their objectives.
As noted earlier, both history and the intentions of the founding Fathers stand as limitations in any attempt to alter fundamentally the provisions of Canadian federalism. Thus, any attempt to bring about significant changes can more easily succeed if it is accompanied by an interpretation of history which favours it.
The argument presented for the natural devolution of the central authority claims that the founders were shortsighted in their provision for future contingencies and did not invest the federal government with enough authority to prevent decentralization.
At the same time, too much responsibility was given to the provinces. As a consequence, the centralist thesis no longer holds and the provinces should therefore be granted those powers necessary to carry out their responsibilities effectively. The cultural argument calls for a fundamental reconsideration and re-interpretation of the assumptions upon which Confederation was based. According to Creighton, the argument of inevitable decentralization is not one that bears up well under scrutiny.
Decentralization was not due to any lack of foresight on the part of the founding Fathers, nor was it the inevitable consequence of socio-economic evolution and change.
The major factor which furthered and initiated the trend towards decentralization was human intervention. There was nothing natural or inevitable about this at all; it might, it ought, to have happened the other way.
Although the courts were responsible for initiating and furthering the process of decentralization, the politicians were not blameless. Whereas the courts transferred "powers and responsibilities" to the provinces, the politicians "continued and hastened" the process by transferring large sums of money.
As Creighton again argues:. When confronted by historical fact, the assumptions of the two-nation theory fare no better than the theory of inevitable decentralization. According to Creighton, "the Manitoba Act of , which gave provincial status, the French language, and sectarian schools to the first prairie province of Canada, was not at all the original intention of the Fathers of Confederation.
This "gave the northwest the government of a territory, not of a province, and made no mention of language or schools. As a result of the rebellion and its attendant problems, the institutions of Manitoba were set up prematurely. The actions of the legislators were here motivated by considerations other than the desire to fulfill a bicultural agreement or understanding.
Despite the provisions of the Manitoba Act , there was no subsequent concerted effort on the part of either party to provide for a bicultural West.
The North-West Territories Act of , "which first set up a territorial government for the prairies beyond Manitoba, made no mention whatever of language rights. The problematic character of Canadian federalism is one that will likely remain with us for some time.
Even given patriation, provincial and federal claims will continue to clash, and competing social and political groups will attempt to rewrite history to suit their own purposes. One must always try to ensure that the interpretive understanding of history is not confused with conscious distortion.
Creighton rightly recognizes that if solutions to political problems are to be effective, they must be arrived at with a view to, and an understanding of, history.
Biggar, E. Anecdotal Life of Sir John Macdonald. John Lovell and Son, Montreal, Bredvold, Louis and R. Rose, eds. The Philosophy of Edmund Burke. Creighton, Donald. Macmillan of Canada, Toronto, Durant, W. The Lessons of History. Simon and Schuster, New York, MacDermott, T. XIV, Macdonald Papers. Public Archives of Canada, Vol. Morton, W. The Kingdom of Canada. McClelland and Stewart, Toronto, Nelson, R.
Wagenberg and W. Hunter and Rose and Co. Pope, Sir J. Oxford University Press, Toronto, Rhoads, Steven E. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Stevenson, G.
Unfulfilled Union. Waite, P. The Confederation Debates in the Province of Canada, Carleton Library Series No. Hamelin, ed. Wright, Benjamin, ed. Harvard University Press, Massachusetts, See also Parliamentary Debates , p. Waite ed. Macdonald," in M. Hamelin ed. Also, T. Macdonald," Canadian Historical Review , No. Macdonald came to Canada from Glasgow, Scotland, at the age of five.
His family settled in Kingston, where the future Sir John received his early education and where he later practised law. He remained in the practice of law throughout his life with a series of partners, in Kingston until and then in Toronto. His firm engaged primarily in commercial law; his most valued clients were established businessmen or corporations.
Macdonald first entered politics at the municipal level, serving as alderman in Kingston, In , at the age of 29, he was elected for Kingston to the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada. II, p. Quoted in Nelson et al. II Aristotle well understood that the fundamental laws of the polity should not be tampered with lightly. As Creighton argues: They are confused and uncertain about the direction they should be taking, partly because they do not know whence they have come, or by what route, or with what aims and ideals as guides for the journey.
Macdonald argued: The fratricidal conflict now unhappily raging in the United States shows us the superiority of our institutions, and of the principle on which they are based. According to Cartier, the French Canadians understood that: If they had their institutions, their language and their religion intact today, it was precisely because of their adherence to the British Crown. As Cartier went on to argue: Every person who had conversed with the most intelligent American statesmen and writers must have learned that they all admitted that the governmental process had become too extended, owing to the introduction of universal suffrage, and mob rule had consequently supplanted legitimate authority; and we now saw the sad spectacle of a country torn by civil war.
In , he argued that: If there is one thing to be avoided, it is meddling with the constitution of the country, which should not be altered till it is evident that the people are suffering from the effects of that constitution as it actually exists. As Pope noted of Macdonald: He preferred, as a general rule, to "hasten slowly," to weigh well all the circumstances, to keep his hand free as long as possible, and to act only in the light of the fullest knowledge he could gather.
When the question of putting the matter of Confederation to the people came up, Macdonald responded in character: By what contrivance known to our Constitution could we take such a vote? This experience, however, does not appear to have prompted Canadians to rethink their views about the division of powers. Most Canadians continue to be comfortable with the decentralized nature of their federation, with relatively few seeing the need to transfer powers from their provincial or territorial government to Ottawa figure 2.
More significantly, there has been relatively little change since , including in the year after the onset of the pandemic i. Despite the important role that Ottawa has played in providing emergency supports and a call by many experts for a more uniform response, the proportion of Canadians seeking a more centralized federation has not increased — if anything, it is slightly lower now than before the pandemic began.
The survey did find widespread support for more federal funding to provinces and territories in many areas, such as health care, care for the elderly, and child care.
Yet there is no agreement as to whether this funding should come with strings attached. Overall, a plurality about two in five say that the federal government should provide more funding to the provinces and territories, and let each province and territory decide how to spend this money to improve services in their area. About one in three say that federal government should create a single set of national standards for services in each of these areas, and then provide more funding only to those provinces and territories that meet those standards.
Not surprisingly, support for more federal funding without conditions is stronger in Quebec. In the rest of Canada, the public is more evenly split on the question. To what extent has the response to the pandemic exacerbated or dampened regional grievances about the way federalism works in Canada? In spring , as the pandemic took hold in Canada, commentators praised the willingness of first ministers to come together to confront the crisis.
Later in the year, the political tone became less collegial, as disagreements arose as to which governments were, or were not, taking the right steps to contain the spread of the virus. General attitudes about how the federation works, for instance, are stable:. Here, results are somewhat less consistent, with grievances edging upward in some jurisdictions and downward in others.
That said, it is possible to detect a slight improvement in mood in Atlantic Canada, particularly when it comes to federal spending. Within the region, the proportion saying their province receives less than its fair share declined by 13 points from 58 to 45 per cent between and On this measure, there were also declines in two other smaller provinces by population : Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
These results point to a partial exception to the pattern of stability in attitudes, one that can be interpreted as a positive reaction to the emergency spending measures introduced by Ottawa in response to COVID. For these reasons, it would be an exaggeration to claim that, as a general rule, the experience of the pandemic dampened regional grievances about the way federalism works in Canada. To date, this has not happened. It has not prompted Canadians to set aside their traditional regional grievances, nor has it created a groundswell of support for a more powerful federal government.
Preferences for strong provincial governments, and perceptions of unfair treatment within the federal system, are not passing fads or views that are expressed without much reflection. The fact that these views so far have not reversed under the pressures of the pandemic should remind us how seriously they should be taken. At the same time, the findings of the Confederation of Tomorrow survey also suggest that we may not be as fragmented as some might fear.
A federal union of the remaining British North American colonies was first considered in the early 19th century. It was pursued more seriously from onwards. It united those three colonies into a federal state as of 1 July Confederation marked the start of Canadian federalism. The main goals of the union were to facilitate economic growth, territorial expansion and national defence. However, many people wanted to keep existing governments and boundaries , for a variety of reasons.
French Canadians held a significant majority in Quebec. They did not want to place all powers in the hands of a central government, in which they would be a minority. There was also a strong sense of provincial identity in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Federalism was therefore a necessary compromise. Macdonald , was not keen on federalism. He preferred a unitary state; provinces would get their authority from, and would be subordinate to, the central government.
Another key factor was the American Civil War. It saw the Southern States secede from the federal union. This contributed to the fear that giving the provinces too much power would make the united country unstable. For these reasons, the Canadian Constitution includes features that are incompatible with a strict approach to federalism.
The lieutenant-governor of each province, who is appointed by the federal government, can prevent provincial legislation from taking effect until the central government has approved it.
The central government can also disallow any provincial statute within a year of its adoption. See Disallowance. Parliament can pass legislation related to education within a province to protect the rights of religious minorities.
It can do this regardless of the normal distribution of powers. Because of these unitary features, the Constitution Act, has been described as quasi-federal. However, the quasi-federal powers have fallen into disuse. Canadian politicians have expressed different versions of Canadian federalism. These differences of opinion have been sharper in Canada, and over a longer period, than in most federations. No consensus has ever been reached regarding the appropriate relationship between the two levels of government.
National and provincial politicians tend to hold different views. These have resulted in partisan conflict when one party has held office at the national level for a long period while having less success at the provincial level. See also Party System. By then, the politicians that drafted the BNA Act were no longer influential in the party.
Quasi-federalism also had little support during the 20th century. However, a centralist view of federalism continues to enjoy considerable support. It stresses the importance of a strong and active federal government. Modern centralists normally avoid the quasi-federal powers of disallowance and reservation.
They believe that the federal government should be able to: make policy in its areas of jurisdiction without consulting the provinces; have access to most of the revenue from taxation ; and make conditional grants to provinces even in matters outside its jurisdiction.
The authors of the BNA Act had intended for the federal government to be more powerful than the provincial governments. Yet over time, the provinces grew in power.
In part, this was because of the growing importance of areas of provincial jurisdiction such as social programs and natural resources. It was also due to a series of court rulings that favoured the provinces.
See Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. A centralist view of federalism, with certain qualifications, was expressed in the report of the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations the Rowell-Sirois Commission. Since then, centralist ideas about federalism have been influential in the Liberal Party. The New Democratic Party also tends towards a centralist position.
Sir John A. In the early s, a Quebec judge, Thomas-Jean-Jacques Loranger , wrote that the central government had been created by the provincial governments. This view became known as the Compact Theory of Confederation.
A similar view was expressed by certain premiers during the talks in —81 to patriate the constitution. The emphasis on provincial autonomy was influential in the Progressive Conservative Party after and in all provincial parties in Quebec. The Reform Party has also held this stance. Supporters of decentralization believe that the functions of the central government should be limited to ones that the provincial governments cannot perform for themselves, and that its control over revenue should be restricted accordingly.
They have also argued that the central government should consult the provinces before launching major policies. Eloquent expressions of decentralization can be found in the report of the Quebec Royal Commission on Constitutional Problems , and in the report of the Task Force on Canadian Unity.
In practice, Canadian federalism has swung between the extremes of centralization and decentralization.
0コメント