Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T13:21:50.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canadian Confederation and the Influence of American Federalism

Part of: CJP Canada 150 collection 0617

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Jennifer Smith
Jennifer Smith
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How did the Fathers of Canadian Confederation understand United States federalism? What lessons did they presume to draw from it and how did they apply them to the Confederation project? In this article, James Madison's comprehensive test of federalism, as set out in the thirty-ninth paper of The Federalist, is used as a tool to examine the Canadians' views of American federalism, particularly in relation to the questions of state sovereignty and the role of an upper chamber. The article suggests that their preoccupation with the threat of state sovereignty led them to concentrate on division of powers issues and, as a result, to pay little attention to the federal possibilities of a second chamber. And it concludes that, because they were working with a parliamentary model of government, not a republican one, these possibilities were not—and are not now—as promising as some political scientists suggest.

Résumé

Quelle compréhension les Pères de la Confédération canadienne avaient-ils du fédéralisme américain? Quelles leçons comptaient-ils en tirer et comment les ont-ils appliquées à leur propre projet de confédération? Dans cet article, l'interprétation du fédéralisme livrée par James Madison (telle que décrite dans le Fédéraliste no 39) est la référence de base qui permet de retracer l'opinion des Canadiens au sujet du fédéralisme américain, concernant en particulier les questions liées à la souveraineté et au rôle d'une Chambre haute. II est suggéré que les craintes entourant la souveraineté du Canada ont incité les Pères à concentrer leur attention sur la question de la division des pouvoirs, négligeant du même coup les possibilités offertes par le régime fédéral concernant l'utilisation d'une seconde Chambre. En conclusion, il est maintenu que le modèle parlementaire—plutôt que républicain—de gouvernement a fait en sorte que ces possibilités n'étaient pas—et ne sont toujours pas—aussi prometteuses que certains politologues l'ont suggéré.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 1988 , pp. 443 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Waite, P. B., The Life and Times of Confederation, 1864–1867 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962), 33Google Scholar.

2 Ibid., 34, 113.

3 Ibid., 111, 115.

4 Scott, F. R., Essays on the Constitution (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977), 25–26, 41.Google Scholar

5 Vipond, Robert C., “Constitutional Politics and the Legacy of the Provincial Rights Movement in Canada,” this JOURNAL 18 (1985), 271–72.Google Scholar

6 Solberg, W. U. (ed.), The Federal Convention and the Formation of the Union of the American States (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1958), 81.Google Scholar

7 Hamilton, Alexander, Jay, John and Madison, James, The Federalist (New York: Modern Library, 1937), 247, 249. Emphasis in original.Google Scholar

8 Ibid., 249.

9 Solberg, , The Federal Convention, 116.Google Scholar

10 Ibid., 142–43.

11 Waite, P. B. (ed.), The Confederation Debates in the Province of Canada/1865 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1963), 40.Google Scholar

12 Speech on the Proposed Union of the British North American Provinces (Montreal, 1864), 4.Google Scholar

13 Browne, G. P. (ed.), Documents on the Confederation of British North America (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1969), 122.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., 124.

15 Waite, Confederation Debates, 44.

16 Ibid.

17 Speech on the Proposed Union, 4.

18 Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces (Quebec: Parliamentary Printers, 1865), 33.Google Scholar

19 Browne, Documents, 161. Section 43 assigns 18 subjects to the local legislatures, the last of which reads: “And generally all matters of a private or local nature, not assigned to the General Parliament.”

20 Speech on the Proposed Union, 8.

21 Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of Confederation, 136.

22 Ibid., 61.

23 Speech on the Proposed Union, 16.

24 Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of Confederation, 42.

25 Speech on the Proposed Union, 14.

26 Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of Confederation, 41.

27 Ibid.

28 Browne, Documents, 159. Section 33 of the Quebec Resolutions opens with the words: “Rendering uniform all or any of the laws relative to property and civil rights in Upper Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island,” and adds a clause on the requirement of the agreement of the provincial legislatures. Section 94 of the Constitution Act, 1867 contains a major substantive addition enabling Parliament, in the event of the passage of uniformity legislation, “to make Laws in relation to any Matter comprised in any such Act.”

29 LaSelva, Samuel V., “Federalism and Unanimity: The Supreme Court and Constitutional Amendment,” this JOURNAL 16 (1983), 761.Google Scholar

30 Waite, Confederation Debates, 22.

31 Parliamentary Debates, 55–61.

32 Ibid., 94.

33 Ibid., 96.

34 Browne, Documents, 64–65.

35 Ibid., 110.

36 Ibid., 138.

37 Browne, Documents, 44–49. In his letter to Edward Cardwell, the British colonial secretary, Lieutenant-Governor Gordon of New Brunswick reported that the composition and the method of selection of members of the federal upper house was one of two subjects “debated at some length in more elaborately prepared speeches” at the Charlottetown meetings (ibid., 45).

38 Ibid., 68.

39 Ibid., 98.

40 Parliamentary Debates, 36–38.

41 Ibid., 494–500.

42 Morning Freeman, Saint John, June 30, 1866.

43 Morning Chronicle, Halifax, January 11, 1865.

44 Parliamentary Debates, 858.

45 Marshall, J. G., An Examination of the Proposed Union of the North American Provinces (Halifax, 1865), 65.Google Scholar

46 Nova Scotia, Legislative Assembly, Journals, April 10, 1866, 10.

47 Smith, Jennifer, “Origins of the Canadian Amendment Dilemma,” Dalhousie Review 61 (1981), 292–301.Google Scholar

48 Letter Addressed to the Earl of Carnarvon by Mr. Joseph Howe, Mr. William Annand, and Mr. Hugh McDonald, Stating their Objections to the proposed scheme of union of the British North American Provinces (London, 1867), 13–14.

49 The new amending formula is contained in Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982.

50 Speech on the Proposed Union, 4.

51 Gibbins, Roger, Regionalism: Territorial Politics in Canada and the United States (Toronto: Butterworths, 1982), 77.Google Scholar

52 Waite, Confederation Debates, 82.

53 Morton, W. L., The Critical Years: The Union of British North America, 1857–1873 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1964), 210.Google Scholar As Morton points out, the alternative was the municipal government model, with the office of governor replaced by that of a superintendent, possibly an elected superintendent.

54 Ibid., 210–11, 199.