Canada

This article is part of the series: Politics and government of Canada

Executive (The Crown) Sovereign (Queen Elizabeth II) Governor General of Canada (David Johnston) Queen's Privy Council for Canada Prime Minister (Stephen Harper) Cabinet (Twenty-Eighth Ministry) Ministries President of the Queen's Privy Council Privy Council Office Clerk of the Privy Council Government of Canada Civil Service Legislative (Parliament) Current Parliament (41st) Senate Speaker of the Senate Government Leader in the Senate Opposition Leader in the Senate Canadian Senate divisions House of Commons Speaker of the House Government Leader in the House Opposition Leader in the House Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition Leader of the Opposition Shadow Cabinet Elections Parliamentary constituencies Electoral system Last election (2011) Judicial Court system Supreme Court Chief Justice (Beverley McLachlin) Constitution British North America Acts Peace, Order and Good Government Charter of Rights and Freedoms Provinces and territories Canadian federalism Monarchy in the Canadian provinces Lieutenant Governors Executive Councils Politics of the Canadian provinces Municipal government in Canada General Regions Political culture Foreign relations Office-holders of Canada Political movements

Other countries · Atlas Politics of Canada portal view talk edit

This article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines. Please help by editing the article to make improvements to the overall structure. (January 2012)

This article or section needs copy editing in order to create readable prose, proper spacing, and/or standard section length. You can assist by editing it now. A how-to guide is available.(January 2012)

Canadian federalism refers to the nature and historical development of the federal systems within Canada. Canada is a federation with two distinct jurisdictions of political authority: the country-wide federal government and the ten regionally-based provincial governments. It also has three territorial governments in the far north, though these are subject to the federal government. All the jurisdictions are linked together by the Canadian Crown, from which all derive their sovereignty and authority; each government includes the Queen-in-Parliament, the Queen-in-Council, and the Queen-on-the-Bench. The federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of the provinces are independent of one another in their respective areas of legislative authority;^[1] although a few sectors are shared, such as agriculture and immigration, but most are either entirely within federal jurisdiction, such as foreign affairs and telecommunications, or entirely within provincial jurisdiction, such as education and healthcare.

The federal nature of Canadian constitution was in response to the colonial diversities in the Maritimes and the Province of Canada, in particular the strong distinction between the French-speaking inhabitants of Lower Canada (Quebec) and the English-speaking inhabitants in Upper Canada (Ontario) and the Maritimes. Federalism was considered essential to the co-existence of the French and English communities. John A. Macdonald, who became the first Prime Minister of Canada, had at first opposed a federalist system of government, favouring a unitary system. However, he later supported the federalist system after seeing the carnage of the American Civil War; he sought to avoid the same violent conflicts by maintaining a fusion of powers rather than a separation of powers.^{[citation needed]}

The division of powers between the federal and provincial governments was initially outlined in the British North America Act, 1867 (now the Constitution Act, 1867), a key document within the Constitution of Canada. Federalism^[2] is one of the three pillars of the constitutional order, along with responsible government and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.^[3]

History[link]

Before World War I[link]

The relationship between Canada and the provinces has changed throughout time, with an increasing amount of decentralization taking place as years passed. Throughout the Macdonald era (1867–1873, 1878–1891), the Confederation was such that it has been described by political scientist K.C. Wheare and historian Paul Romney as "Quasi-Federalism".^[4] This meant that the political and judicial elites of the 19th century read the Constitution of Canada in a way that gave the federal parliament extensive powers that essentially made the provinces "subordinate to Ottawa"; the structure within Canada was intended to be the same as that which existed between the government at Westminster and the governments of the Empire's North American colonies.^[4] The Macdonald government's use of disallowance and reservation also reinforced the supremacy of the federal government at that time.

Beginning in the 1880s, first with the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Russell v. The Queen, and with later successful provincial challenges, notably those spearheaded by Sir Oliver Mowat, Premier of Ontario, the federal power became significantly constrained in nature.

With the appointment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier came a new phase of Confederation that Dyck refers to as "Classical Federalism". This was marked by a more equal relationship between the federal government and the provinces, as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council settled several disputes in favour of the latter. The federal government also allowed its disallowance and reservation powers to fall into disuse. This style of governance continued throughout the early years of the leadership of Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King (although legislation from Alberta was disallowed in the 1930s).

1914 - 1945[link]

Parliament of Canada

During each of the two world wars, Ottawa expanded its powers greatly. This was done through the War Measures Act, which was constitutionally justified by the peace, order and good government clause. In addition, during the First World War, Parliament increased its taxation powers by establishing income taxes.

During the Second World War, the National Resources Mobilization Act was passed to supplement the War Measures Act in pursuing the national war effort. In addition:

• jurisdiction over unemployment insurance was transferred permanently to the federal level,
• the provinces surrendered their power to levy succession duties and personal and corporate income taxes for the duration of the war (and for one year afterwards) under the Wartime Tax Rental Agreement,^[5]
• labour relations were centralized under federal control through the passing of the Wartime Labour Relations Regulations, to which the provinces ceded their jurisdiction (which lasted until 1948) over all labour matters falling neither under federal jurisdiction nor directly essential to the war effort.^[6]

Canada emerged from the Second World War with more association and cooperation between the federal and provincial levels of government. This led to the rise of the welfare state and the health care system (as the Canadian government acted to ensure that Canadians as a people had some common quality of service), to the fact that many of the jurisdictions of the two levels of government were closely related, and to the fact that this allowed the federal government to retain a great deal of control that they had enjoyed during World War II. Keynesian economics were also introduced by the federal government through this system. The period was also marked by a number of First Ministers meetings (i.e., meetings between the prime minister and the provincial premiers).

1960 - 1982[link]

Pierre Trudeau

After 1960 and Quebec's Quiet Revolution, Canada moved toward a greater degree of administrative decentralization, with Quebec often opting out of important federal initiatives, such as the Canada Pension Plan (with Quebec creating a separate Quebec Pension Plan). Under the leadership of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, the federal government became more centralist in ideology, and Canada entered a stage of "conflictual federalism" that lasted from 1970 to 1984. The National Energy Program sparked a great deal of bitterness against the federal government in Alberta; as well, the federal government was also involved in disputes over oil with Newfoundland and Saskatchewan at this time. (These culminated in the addition of section 92A to the Constitution Act, 1867, by the Constitution Act, 1982, which gave the provinces more power with regard to these resources).^[7]

In the lead up to the patriation of the constitution in 1982, Trudeau had, when negotiations with the provinces stalled at one point, threatened to take the case for patriation straight to the British parliament "[without] bothering to ask one premier." The federal Cabinet and Crown counsel took the position that if the British Crown — in council, parliament, and on the bench — was to exercise its sovereignty over Canada, it did so at the request of the federal ministers only.^[8] Eight provinces soon appealed to the courts. Justice Joseph O'Sullivan of the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that the federal government's position was incorrect, as the constitutionally entrenched principle of responsible government meant that "Canada had not one responsible government but eleven."^[8] Further, officials in the United Kingdom indicated that the British parliament was under no obligation to fulfill any request for legal changes made by Trudeau, particularly if Canadian convention was not being followed.^[9] The Supreme Court of Canada subsequently ruled in the Patriation Reference that such a convention did exist, but it did not legally prevent the Parliament of Canada from unilaterally seeking the amendment of the Constitution without consent of the provinces. In addition, it was not the role of the courts to enforce constitutional conventions.

Modern developments[link]

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada under Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney favoured devolution of powers to the provinces, culminating in the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. After a merger with the heavily devolutionist Canadian Alliance, the new Conservative Party of Canada under Stephen Harper has continued the same stance.

After the 1995 Quebec referendum on Quebec sovereignty, one of several actions by then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien was to put some limits on the ability of the federal government to spend money in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Thus, in 1999, the federal government and all provincial governments except Quebec's agreed to the Social Union Framework Agreement, which promoted common standards for social programs across Canada.^[10] Former Prime Minister Paul Martin has used the term^[11] asymmetrical federalism^[12] to describe this arrangement.

The modern approach of the Supreme Court of Canada tends to favour the concepts of flexible federalism (where jurisdictions overlap) and cooperative federalism (where they can favourably interact),^[13] as noted most recently in its opinion in Reference re Securities Act.

The Crown[link]

As a federal monarchy, the Canadian Crown is unitary throughout all jurisdictions in the country,^[14] with the headship of state being a part of all equally.^[15] As such, the sovereignty of the each is passed on not by the governor general or federal parliament, but through the overreaching Crown itself as a part of the executive, legislative, and judicial operations in Canada's eleven (one federal and ten provincial) legal jurisdictions; though singular, linking the various governments into a federal state,^[16] the Crown is thus "divided" into eleven "crowns".^[17] The Fathers of Confederation viewed the system of constitutional monarchy as a bulwark against any potential fracturing of the Canadian federation,^[18] and the Crown remains central to Canada's federalism.^[19]

The judicial power[link]

The court system of Canada has seen significant unification of its approach to the determination of matters in recent years, coming from:

• jurisprudence arising from the interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and
• the rise of the concept of comity between the courts of the different provinces, emerging from the judgment of Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye and enlarged in Hunt v. T&N plc.

Distribution of Legislative Powers[link]

Front page of a copy of the Act from 1867

The federal-provincial distribution of legislative powers (also known as the division of powers) defines the scope of the power of the federal parliament of Canada and the powers of each individual provincial legislature or assembly. These have been identified as being either exclusive to a particular level or concurrent in nature.

Powers exclusive to the Parliament of Canada[link]

• Constitution Act, 1867
  • Section 91 - main listing of powers, based upon the power known as peace, order and good government
  • Section 93(4) - remedial legislation with respect to education rights
  • Section 94 - uniformity of laws relating to property and civil rights in all provinces other than Quebec
  • Section 100 - creation of a General Court of Appeal and other courts "for the better Administration of the Laws of Canada"
  • Section 106 - appropriation of funds for federal purposes
  • Section 132 - implementing obligations arising from treaties between the British Empire and foreign countries

It should be noted that no laws have ever been passed under ss. 93(4) or 94.

• Constitution Act, 1871
  • Section 4 - governing any territories not forming part of any province

• Statute of Westminster 1931
  • Section 3 - laws having extraterritorial operation

Powers exclusive to the provincial legislatures[link]

• Constitution Act, 1867
  • Section 92 - main listing
  • Section 92A - exploration, development, taxation and export to other provinces of non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources and electrical energy (subject to Parliament's authority under section 91(2) to regulate interprovincial movements)
  • Section 93 - education (subject to any rights to separate schools)

Concurrent powers[link]

• Constitution Act, 1867
  • Section 94A - old age pensions (but federal legislation will not displace provincial laws)
  • Section 95 - agriculture and immigration (federal laws being paramount to conflicting provincial laws)

Interrelationship with the Charter[link]

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

In 1982 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was brought into effect. This was not meant to affect the workings of federalism, though some content was moved from section 91 to section 4 of the Charter. Mainly, the Charter is meant to decrease powers of both levels of government by ensuring both federal and provincial laws respect Charter rights, under section 32.

The relationship between federalism and the Charter is directly dealt with in section 31, in which it is made clear neither the federal nor provincial governments gain powers under the Charter.

In R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (1985) it was found that legislation whose purpose is found to violate the Charter cannot be saved even if its effects were found to be inoffensive. If a provision of law cannot be seen to constitute a reasonable limit, demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, it cannot be saved pursuant to section 1 of the Charter.

However, the provincial education power under Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is plenary, and is not subject to Charter attack, so long as it does not extend beyond the confines of Section 93's mandate to fund Roman Catholic separate schools and public schools.^[20]

Nature of the legislative power within the federal structure[link]

Much of the distribution of power has been ambiguous, leading to disputes that have been decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and, after 1949, the Supreme Court of Canada.

National and provincial concerns[link]

The preamble of Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 states: "It shall be lawful for the Queen, [...] to make laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces;" In addition to assigning powers that are not otherwise stated elsewhere (which has been very narrowly interpreted), this has led to the creation of the national emergency and national concern doctrines, which are governed by the principles stated by Le Dain J. in R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd.:^[21]

The national concern doctrine is separate and distinct from the national emergency doctrine of the peace, order and good government power, which is chiefly distinguishable by the fact that it provides a constitutional basis for what is necessarily legislation of a temporary nature; The national concern doctrine applies to both new matters which did not exist at Confederation and to matters which, although originally matters of a local or private nature in a province, have since, in the absence of national emergency, become matters of national concern; For a matter to qualify as a matter of national concern in either sense it must have a singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility that clearly distinguishes it from matters of provincial concern and a scale of impact on provincial jurisdiction that is reconcilable with the fundamental distribution of legislative power under the Constitution; In determining whether a matter has attained the required degree of singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility that clearly distinguishes it from matters of provincial concern it is relevant to consider what would be the effect on extra‑provincial interests of a provincial failure to deal effectively with the control or regulation of the intra‑provincial aspects of the matter.

The federal government of Canada is partly limited by the powers assigned exclusively to the provincial legislatures. For example, the Canadian constitution created a very broad provincial jurisdiction over direct taxation, property, and civil rights. Many disputes between the two levels of government revolve around conflicting interpretations of the meaning of these two powers.

By the 1930s, as noted succinctly in the Fish Canneries Reference and then subsequently in the Aeronautics Reference, the division of responsibilities between federal and provincial jurisdictions was summarized as follows by Lord Sankey:

Lord Sankey

1. The legislation of the Parliament of the Dominion, so long as it strictly relates to subjects of legislation expressly enumerated in section 91, is of paramount authority, even if it trenches upon matters assigned to the Provincial Legislature by section 92.
2. The general power of legislation conferred up on the Parliament of the Dominion by section 91 of the Act in supplement of the power to legislate upon the subjects expressly enumerated must be strictly confined to such matters as are unquestionably of national interest and importance, and must not trench on any of the subjects enumerated in section 92, as within the scope of Provincial legislation, unless these matters have attained such dimensions as to affect the body politic of the Dominion.
3. It is within the competence of the Dominion Parliament to provide for matters which though otherwise within the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature, are necessarily incidental to effective legislation by the Parliament of the Dominion upon a subject of legislation expressly enumerated in section 91.
4. There can be a domain in which Provincial and Dominion legislation may overlap, in which case, neither legislation will be ultra vires if the field is clear, but if the field is not clear and the two legislations meet, the Dominion legislation must prevail.^[22]

Attaining a national dimension[link]

Federal jurisdiction therefore arises in several circumstances:

• under the national emergency doctrine for legislation that is of a temporary nature (ie, the former War Measures Act)
• under the national concern doctrine for:
  • new matters which did not exist at Confederation (ie, radio and television)
  • matters of a local or private nature in a province that have since, in the absence of national emergency, become matters of national concern (such as what can accrue to the general regulation of trade and commerce)
• matters where the grant is exclusive under Section 91 (ie, criminal law)
• matters where authority may be assumed (as with works for the general advantage of Canada)

Uniformity of federal law[link]

Section 129 of the Constitution Act, 1867 provided for laws in effect at the time of Confederation to continue until repealed or altered by the appropriate legislative authority. Similar provisions were incorporated in the terms of union of other territories that were subsequently incorporated into Canada.

Uniformity of laws in some areas of federal jurisdiction was delayed for a significant length of time:

• offences under the Criminal Code were not made uniform until 1955, and common-law criminal offences were only abolished at that time as well
• divorce law - not until 1968
• Canadian maritime law - not until 1971
• marriage law - not until 2005

Interplay of jurisdictions[link]

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada has noted that "our Constitution is based on an allocation of exclusive powers to both levels of government, not concurrent powers, although these powers are bound to interact in the realities of the life of our Constitution."^[23] Among more notable examples of this:

• while the provinces have the power to create criminal courts, only the federal government has the power to determine criminal procedure and to appoint those courts' judges.^[24]
• the federal power to regulate fisheries does not override the provincial authority to require a permit for catching the fish within the waters under provincial control^[25]
• while the concept of marriage is under federal jurisdiction, the solemnization of marriages is controlled by the provinces
• the provincial power to regulate security interests under the property and civil rights power will be displaced by security interests created under a federal head of power - most notably under the banking power - but only to the extent that federal law has covered the field^[26]
• in the area of insolvency law, provincial statutes continue to operate by way of federal incorporation into the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act

In order to rationalize how far each of the jurisdictions may use its authority, certain doctrines have been devised by the courts:

• pith and substance, including the nature of any ancillary powers, and the colourability of legislation,
• double aspect,
• paramountcy, and
• interjurisdictional immunity

The power to implement treaties[link]

The Section 132 power - which notably gave the Parliament of Canada jurisdiction over aeronautics as confirmed in the Aeronautics Reference, was significantly curtailed following the coming into force of the Statute of Westminster 1931. In the Labour Conventions Reference,^[27] the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that it did not evolve to take into account the fact that Canada was now a self-governing Dominion. As noted by Lord Atkin at the end of the judgment,

It must not be thought that the result of this decision is that Canada is incompetent to legislate in performance of treaty obligations. In totality of legislative powers, Dominion and Provincial together, she is fully equipped. But the legislative powers remain distributed and if in the exercise of her new functions derived from her new international status she incurs obligations they must, so far as legislation be concerned when they deal with provincial classes of subjects, be dealt with by the totality of powers, in other words by co-operation between the Dominion and the Provinces. While the ship of state now sails on larger ventures and into foreign waters she still retains the watertight compartments which are an essential part of her original structure.

This judgment has generated extensive debate about the complications that were introduced in implementing Canada's subsequent international obligations,^[28][29] and the Supreme Court of Canada has indicated in several dicta that it may be ready to revisit the issue in an appropriate case.^[30]

Current approach for determining constitutionality of legislation[link]

[edit] Canadian Western Bank principles

How the constitutionality of legislation is determined was examined in Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, where the Supreme Court of Canada summarized the following principles:

1. the pith and substance of the provincial law and the federal law should be examined to ensure that they are both validly enacted laws and to determine the nature of the overlap, if any, between them.
2. the applicability of the provincial law to the federal undertaking or matter in question must be resolved with reference to the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity.
3. only if both the provincial law and the federal law have been found to be valid pieces of legislation, and only if the provincial law is found to be applicable to the federal matter in question, then both statutes must be compared to determine whether the overlap between them constitutes a conflict sufficient to trigger the application of the doctrine of federal paramountcy.

Where the constitutionality of legislation is being questioned in relation to the division of powers under the Constitution Act, 1867, an analysis of its pith and substance must be undertaken. This analysis consists of an inquiry into the true nature of the law in question for the purpose of identifying the matter to which it essentially relates.^[31]

• If its pith and substance can be related to a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of the legislature that enacted it, the courts will declare it intra vires.
• If, however, it can more properly be said to relate to a matter that is outside the jurisdiction of that legislature, it will be held to be invalid owing to this violation of the division of powers.
• The corollary to this analysis is that legislation whose pith and substance falls within the jurisdiction of the legislature that enacted it may, at least to a certain extent, affect matters beyond the legislature’s jurisdiction without necessarily being unconstitutional. At this stage of the analysis, the dominant purpose of the legislation is still decisive.
• Merely incidental effects will not disturb the constitutionality of an otherwise intra vires law.^[32]

The pith and substance doctrine is founded on the recognition that it is in practice impossible for a legislature to exercise its jurisdiction over a matter effectively without incidentally affecting matters within the jurisdiction of another level of government.^[33]

Also, some matters are by their very nature impossible to categorize under a single head of power: they may have both provincial and federal aspects. The double aspect doctrine, which applies in the course of a pith and substance analysis, ensures that the policies of the elected legislators of both levels of government are respected. The double aspect doctrine recognizes that both Parliament and the provincial legislatures can adopt valid legislation on a single subject depending on the perspective from which the legislation is considered, that is, depending on the various aspects of the matter in question.^[34]

In certain circumstances, however, the powers of one level of government must be protected against intrusions, even incidental ones, by the other level. For this purpose, the courts have developed the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy.^[35]

Further consideration[link]

This is not an exhaustive list, and the jurisprudence is still evolving.

In Re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, an Act of the Newfoundland legislature was held to be unconstitutional because of colourability. While its stated purpose was to cancel a long-term lease and to expropriate the power generation assets in question that were located in the province, its real purpose was to interfere with civil rights existing outside the province. As noted by McIntyre J.:

Where the pith and substance of the provincial enactment is in relation to matters which fall within the field of provincial legislative competence, incidental or consequential effects on extra-provincial rights will not render the enactment ultra vires. Where, however, the pith and substance of the provincial enactment is the derogation from or elimination of extra-provincial rights then, even if it is cloaked in the proper constitutional form, it will be ultra vires. A colourable attempt to preserve the appearance of constitutionality in order to conceal an unconstitutional objective will not save the legislation.^[36]

McLachlin C.J.

In Quebec (Attorney General) v. Lacombe, the nature of any ancillary powers arising from the pith and substance of a matter were considered. Under that doctrine, a provision which is, in pith and substance, outside the competence of its enacting body will be saved where it is an important part of a broader legislative scheme that is within the competence of the enacting body. As noted by McLachlin C.J.:^[37]

• The degree of integration required increases in proportion to the seriousness of the encroachment.
• Where the impugned measure encroaches only slightly on the jurisdiction of the other level of government, a rational, functional connection is required.
• As the degree of intrusion grows more serious, the required degree of integration tends toward a test of necessity.
• To meet the test, a prima facie invalid measure must complement rather than merely supplement the legislative scheme. It must, both rationally and in its function, further the purposes of the valid legislative scheme of which it is said to be part.

Other conflicts continue to arise between the various heads of power:

• In Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, the federal use of the criminal law power was found in certain key aspects to overreach too far into the provincial hospitals power, as well as into the more familiar sphere of property and civil rights.
• In Reference re Securities Act, a proposed federal law for establishing a national securities regulator was held to overreach, as a whole, too far into the property and civil rights power, and was thus wholly unconstitutional. Certain provisions, if enacted separately, would have been valid, as they were beyond provincial jurisdiction.

References[link]

	Canadian politics portal
	Canada portal

Further reading[link]

• Dyck, Rand (2012). Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches (5th ed.). Toronto, Ontario: Nelson Education. ISBN 978-0-17-650343-7. 
• Hogg, Peter W. (2007). Constitutional Law of Canada (5th ed.). Toronto, Ontario: Carswell. ISBN 978-0-7798-1337-7. 
• Rocher, François; Smith, Miriam (2003). New Trends in Canadian Federalism (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-1-55111-414-9. 
• Stevenson, Garth (2003). Unfulfilled union: Canadian federalism and national unity (4th ed.). McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN 0-7735-2744-3. http://books.google.ca/books?id=ugdgvOynHwYC&lpg=PP1&dq=Unfulfilled%20union%3A%20Canadian%20federalism%20and%20national%20unity&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=true. 

External links[link]

	Book: Canada
Wikipedia books are collections of articles that can be downloaded or ordered in print.

• Federalism in Canada: Basic Framework and Operation | Mapleleafweb.com
• Interuniversity journal Federalism-e
• Canadian Federalism
• Studies on the Canadian Constitution and Canadian Federalism
• Maple Leaf Web: Atlantic Canada and Canadian Federalism
• Constitutional Law professor Hester Lessard on the Downtown Eastside and Jurisdictional Justice
• Canadian Governments Compared

v t e Constitution of Canada Constitution Act, 1867 Division of powers · Peace, order and good government · Criminal law power · Trade and Commerce clause · Works and Undertakings (Declaratory Power) · Property and civil rights · Disallowance and reservation Canada Act 1982 Constitution Act, 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms · Aboriginal Rights clause · Amending formula Conventions Royal prerogative · At Her Majesty's pleasure List of Canadian constitutional documents History of the Constitution Royal Proclamation of 1763 · Quebec Act · Constitutional Act of 1791 · Act of Union 1840 · British North America Acts · Statute of Westminster 1931 Constitutional debate Fulton–Favreau formula · Victoria Charter · Meech Lake Accord · Charlottetown Accord · Calgary Declaration · Other unsuccessful amendments Interpretation of the Constitution Pith and substance · Double aspect · Paramountcy · Living tree · Implied Bill of Rights · Interjurisdictional immunity · Purposive theory · Dialogue principle Category  · WikiProject

Canadians

1st row: Shanawdithit, Aatsista-Mahkan, Louis Riel, Sir John A. Macdonald, Lester B. Pearson 2nd row: Celine Dion, Thomas D'Arcy McGee, John Diefenbaker, Linda Evangelista, Patrick Chan 3rd row: Russell Peters, Cassie Steele, Michaëlle Jean, David Suzuki, Tommy Douglas
Total population
Canada 34,839,000 (Est.[Note 1])
Regions with significant populations
United States 1,003,850 [1] Hong Kong 200,000 [1] United Kingdom 72,518 [1] Taiwan 52,500 [1] Lebanon 45,000 [1] People's Republic of China 20,000 [1] Australia 27,289 [1] Italy 23,487 [1] France 18,913 [1] Greece 12,477 [1] Egypt 10,000 [1] South Korea 8,763 [1] Mexico 7,943 [2] New Zealand 7,770 [1] Switzerland 7,519 [1] Philippines 7,500 [1] Portugal 7,326 [1] Japan 7,067 [1] Netherlands 8,427 [1] Belgium 4,145 [1] Norway 2,290 [1] Ireland 4,081 [1] Spain 3,810 [1] Denmark 2,752 [1] Sweden 2,742 [3]
Languages
Official languages are English (Canadian English) and French (Canadian French). Numerous indigenous American languages are also recognized.
Religion
Multiple denominations

Canadians (singular Canadian) are the people who are identified with the country of Canada. This connection may be genetic, residential, legal, historical, cultural or ethnic. For most Canadians, several (frequently all) of those types of connections exist and are the source(s) of them being considered Canadians.

Aside from the Aboriginal peoples, who according to the 2006 Canadian Census numbered 1,172,790, 3.8% of the country's total population,^[4] the majority of the population is made up of Old World immigrants and their descendants. After the initial period of French and then British colonization, different waves (or peaks) of immigration and settlement of non-aboriginal peoples took place over the course of nearly two centuries and continues today. Elements of Aboriginal, French, British and more recent immigrant customs, languages and religions have combined to form the culture of Canada and thus a Canadian identity. Canada has also been strongly influenced by that of its linguistic, geographic and economic neighbour, the United States.

Canadian independence grew gradually over the course of many years since the formation of the Canadian Confederation in 1867. World War I and World War II in particular gave rise to a desire amongst Canadians to have their country recognized as a fully-fledged sovereign state with a distinct citizenship. Legislative independence was established with the passage of the Statute of Westminster 1931, the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946 took effect on January 1, 1947, and full sovereignty was achieved with the patriation of the constitution in 1982. Canada's nationality law closely mirrored that of the United Kingdom. Legislation since the mid 20th century represents Canadians' commitment to multilateralism and socioeconomic development.

Population[link]

Canadians make up 0.5% of the world's total population,^2010[5] having relied upon immigration for population growth and social development.^[6] Approximately 41% of current Canadians are first or second generation immigrants,^[7] meaning one out of every five Canadians currently living in Canada was not born in the country.^[8] Statistics Canada projects that, by 2031, nearly one-half of Canadians above the age of 15 will be foreign-born or have one foreign-born parent.^[9]

Immigration[link]

The French originally settled New France in present-day Quebec and Ontario, during the early part of the 17th century.^[10] Approximately 100 Irish-born families would settle the Saint Lawrence Valley by 1700, assimilating into the Canadien population and culture.^[11][12] The French also settled the Acadian peninsula alongside a smaller number of other European merchants, who collectively became the Acadians.^[13] During the 18th and 19th century; immigration westward (to the area known as Rupert's Land) was carried out by French settlers (Coureur des bois) working for the North West Company, and by British (English and Scottish) settlers representing the Hudson's Bay Company.^[14] This led to the creation of the Métis, an ethnic group of mixed European and First Nations parentage.^[15]

The British conquest of New France was proceeded by small number of Germans and Swedes who settled alongside the Scottish in Port Royal, Nova Scotia, while some Irish immigrated to the Colony of Newfoundland.^[16] In the wake of the 1775 invasion of Canada by the newly-formed Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, approximately 60,000 United Empire Loyalist fled to British North America, a large portion of whom migrated to New Brunswick.^[17] After the War of 1812, British (included British army regulars), Scottish and Irish immigration was encouraged throughout Rupert's Land, Upper Canada and Lower Canada.^[18]

Between 1815 and 1850 some 800,000 immigrants came to the colonies of British North America, mainly from the British Isles as part of the great migration of Canada.^[19] These included some Gaelic-speaking Highland Scots displaced by the Highland Clearances to Nova Scotia.^[20] The Irish Potato Famine of the 1840s significantly increased the pace of Irish immigration to Prince Edward Island and the Province of Canada, with over 35,000 distressed individuals landing in Toronto in 1847 and 1848.^[21][22] Beginning in late 1850s, Chinese immigrants into the Colony of Vancouver Island and Colony of British Columbia peaked with the onset of the Fraser Canyon Gold Rush.^[23] The Chinese Immigration Act of 1885 eventually placed a head tax on all Chinese immigrants, in hopes of discouraging Chinese immigration after completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway.^[24]

The population of Canada has consistently risen, doubling approximately every 40 years, since the establishment of the Canadian Confederation in 1867.^[25] From the mid to late 19th century Canada had a policy of assisting immigrants from Europe, including an estimated 100,000 unwanted "Home Children" from Britain.^[26] Block settlement communities were established throughout western Canada between the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Some were planned and other were spontaneously created by the settlers themselves.^[27] Canada was now receiving a large amount of European immigrants predominately Italians, Germans, Scandinavians, Dutch and Ukrainians.^[28]

100,000 +

50,000 - 99,999

20,000 - 49,999

10,000 - 19,999

Legislative restrictions on immigration (such as the Continuous journey regulation and Chinese Immigration Act) that had favoured British and other European immigrants were amended in the 1960s, opening the doors to immigrants from all parts of the world.^[29] While the 1950s had still seen high levels of immigration by Europeans, by the 1970s immigrants increasingly were Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, Jamaican and Haitian.^[30] During the late 1960s and early 1970s, Canada received many American Vietnam War draft dissenters.^[31] Throughout the late 1980s and 1990s Canada's growing Pacific trade brought with it a large influx of South Asians, that tended to settle in British Columbia.^[32]

In 2009, Canada received 252,179 "permanent residents" - the top ten source countries were China (29,049), the Philippines (27,277), India (26,122), the United States (9,723), the United Kingdom (9,566), France (7,300), Pakistan (6,214), Iran (6,065), South Korea (5,864), and Morocco (5,222).^[33] These countries were followed closely by Algeria (4,785), United Arab Emirates (4,640), and Iraq (4,567) with Sri Lanka, Colombia, and Germany each contributing over 4,000 individuals.^[33] Immigrants of all backgrounds tend to settle in the major urban centres.^[34][35]

The majority of illegal immigrants come from the southern provinces of the People's Republic of China, with Asia as a whole, Eastern Europe, Caribbean, Africa and the Middle East all contributing to the illegal population.^[36] Estimates of illegal immigrants range between 35,000 and 120,000.^[37] A 2008 report by the Auditor General of Canada Sheila Fraser, stated that Canada has lost track of approximately 41,000 illegal immigrants whose visas have expired.^[38]

Citizenship[link]

Members of the first official Canadian Citizenship ceremony held at the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa,
3 January 1947

Canadian citizenship is typically obtained by birth in Canada, birth abroad when at least one parent is a Canadian citizen and was born in Canada, or by adoption abroad by at least one Canadian citizen.^[39] It can also be granted to a permanent resident who lives in Canada for three out of four years and meets specific requirements.^[39] Canada established its own nationality law in 1946 with the enactment of the Canadian Citizenship Act, which took effect on January 1, 1947.^[40] The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, was passed by the Parliament of Canada in 2001 as Bill C-11, which replaced the Immigration Act of 1976 as the primary federal legislation regulating immigration.^[41] Prior to the conferring of legal status on Canadian citizenship, Canada's naturalization laws consisted of a multitude of Acts beginning with the Immigration Act of 1910.^[42]

According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada there are three main classifications for immigrants: Family class (closely related persons of Canadian residents), Economic class (admitted on the basis of a point system that account for age, health and labour-market skills required for cost effectively inducting the immigrants into Canada's labour market) and Refugee class (those seeking protection by applying to remain in the country by way of the Canadian immigration and refugee law).^[43] In 2008, there were 65,567 immigrants in the family class, 21,860 refugees, and 149,072 economic immigrants amongst the 247,243 total immigrants to the country.^[7] Canada resettles over one in 10 of the world’s refugees^[44] and has one of the highest per-capita immigration rates in the world.^[45]

The majority of Canadian citizens live in Canada; however, there are approximately 2,800,000 Canadians abroad as of November 1, 2009.^[46] This represents about 7.5% of the total Canadian population. Of those abroad the United States, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, Taiwan, China, and Lebanon have the largest Canadian diaspora. Canadians in United States are the greatest single expatriate community at over 1 million in 2009, representing 35.8% of all Canadians abroad.^[47] Under current Canadian law, Canada does not restrict dual citizenship but Passport Canada encourages its citizens to travel abroad on their Canadian passport, so they can access Canadian consular services.^[48]

Ethnic ancestry[link]

Canada has thirty four ethnic groups with at least one hundred thousand members each, of which eleven have over 1,000,000 people and numerous others are represented in smaller amounts.^{[Note 2]} According to the 2006 census, the largest self-reported ethnic origin is Canadian/Canadien (32%),^{[Note 3]} followed by English (21%), French (15.8%), Scottish (15.1%), Irish (13.9%), German (10.2%), Italian (4.6%), Chinese (4.3%), North American Indian (4.0%),^{[Note 4]} Ukrainian (3.9%), and Dutch (Netherlands) (3.3%).^[49] In the 2006 census, over five million Canadians identified themselves as a member of a visible minority. Together, they make up 16.2% of the total population: most numerous among these are South Asian (4.0%), Black (2.5%), and Filipino (1.1%).^[49] Aboriginal peoples are not considered a visible minority under the Employment Equity Act,^[50] and is the definition that Statistics Canada also uses.

Map of the dominant self-identified ethnic origins of ancestors per census division of 2006.^{[Note 2]}

Canadian[Note 3]   English   French   Scottish   German

Italian   North American Indian[Note 4]   Ukrainian   East Indian   Inuit

For a complete list see: Canadian ethnic groups

Culture[link]

A 1911 political cartoon on Canada's bicultural identity showing a flag combining symbols of Britain, France and Canada; titled "The next favor. 'A flag to suit the minority.'"

Canada's culture, like that of most any country in the world, is a product of its language(s), religion(s), political and legal system(s). Being a settler nation, Canada has been shaped by waves of migration that have combined to form a unique blend of art, cuisine, literature, humour and music.^[51] Today, Canada has a diverse makeup of nationalities and constitutional protection for policies that promote multiculturalism rather than cultural assimilation or a single national myth.^[52] In Quebec, cultural identity is strong, and many French-speaking commentators speak of a Quebec culture as distinguished from English Canadian culture.^[53] However as a whole Canada is a cultural mosaic a collection of several regional, aboriginal, and ethnic subcultures.^[54][55] Canadian society is often depicted as being "very progressive, diverse, and multicultural".^[56]

Canadian government policies such as official bilingualism, publicly-funded health care, higher and more progressive taxation, outlawing capital punishment, strong efforts to eliminate poverty, an emphasis on multiculturalism, imposing strict gun control, leniency in regard to drug use, and, most recently, legalizing same-sex marriage are social indicators of how Canada's political and cultural evolution differ from that of the United States.^[57] American media and entertainment are popular, if not dominant, in English Canada; conversely, many Canadian cultural products and entertainers are successful in the United States and worldwide.^[58] The Government of Canada has also influenced culture with programs, laws and institutions. It has created Crown corporations to promote Canadian culture through media and has also tried to protect Canadian culture by setting legal minimums on Canadian content.^[59]

Monument to Multiculturalism by Francesco Pirelli in Toronto; four identical sculptures are located in Buffalo City, Changchun, Sarajevo, and Sydney

Canadian culture has historically been influenced by Aboriginal, French and British cultures and traditions. Most of Canada's territory was inhabited and developed later than other European colonies in the Americas, with the result that themes and symbols of pioneers, trappers, and traders were important in the early development of the Canadian identity.^[60] First Nations played a critical part in the development of European colonies in Canada, particularly for their role in assisting exploration of the continent during the North American fur trade.^[61] The British conquest of New France in the mid 1700s brought a large Francophone population under British Imperial rule, creating a need for compromise and accommodation.^[62] The new British rulers left alone much of the religious, political, and social culture of the French-speaking habitants, guaranteeing the right of the Canadiens to practise the Catholic faith and to the use of French civil law (now Quebec law) through the Quebec Act of 1774.^[63]

The Constitution Act of 1867 was designed to meet the growing calls of Canadians for autonomy from British rule, while avoiding the overly-strong decentralization that contributed to the Civil War in the United States.^[64] The compromises made by the Fathers of Confederation set Canadians on a path to bilingualism, and this in turn contributed to an acceptance of diversity that later led to both multiculturalism and the recognition of Aboriginal contributions to Canadian society.^[65][66]

The Canadian Forces and overall civilian participation in the First World War and Second World War helped to foster Canadian nationalism,^[67][68][69] however in 1917 and 1944 conscription crisis's caused a considerable rift along ethnic lines between Anglophones and Francophones.^[70] As a result of the First and Second World Wars, the Government of Canada became more assertive and less deferential to British authority.^[71] With the gradual loosening of political ties to the United Kingdom and the modernization of Canadian immigration policies, in the 20th century immigrants with African, Caribbean and Asian nationalities have added to the Canadian identity and its culture.^[72] The multiple origins immigration pattern continues today with the arrival of large numbers of immigrants from non British or French backgrounds.^[73]

Multiculturalism in Canada was adopted as the official policy of the government during the premiership of Pierre Elliot Trudeau in the 1970s and 1980s.^[74] The Canadian government has often been described as the instigator of multicultural ideology because of its public emphasis on the social importance of immigration.^[75] Multiculturalism is administered by the Department of Canadian Heritage and reflected in the law through the Canadian Multiculturalism Act^[76] and section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.^[77] In parts of Canada, especially the major urban areas, multiculturalism itself is the cultural norm and diversity is a force that unites the community.^[78][79]

Religion[link]

Canada as a nation is religiously diverse, encompassing a wide range of groups, beliefs and customs.^[80] The preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms references "God", and the monarch carries the title of "Defender of the Faith".^[81] However Canada has no official religion and support for religious pluralism (Freedom of religion in Canada) is an important part of Canada's political culture.^[82][83] With Christianity on the decline, having once been central and integral to Canadian culture and daily life;^[84] it has been recently suggested that Canada has come to enter a post-Christian period in a secular state, where the practice of religion has "moved to the margins of public life", with irreligion in Canada on the rise.^[85]

The 2001 Canadian census reported that 77.1% of Canadians identify as being Christians; of this, Catholics make up the largest group (43.6%).^[87][88] The largest Protestant denomination is the United Church of Canada (9.5%), followed by the Anglicans (6.8%), Baptists (2.4%), Lutherans (2%), and other Christians (4.4%).^[88] About 16.5% of Canadians declare no religious affiliation, including agnostics, atheists, humanists, and other groups. The remaining 6.3% are affiliated with non-Christian religions, the largest of which is Islam (2.0%), followed by Judaism (1.1%).^[87][88]

Before the arrival of European colonists and explorers, First Nations followed a wide array of mostly animistic religions.^[89] During the colonial period, the French settled along the shores of the Saint Lawrence River, specifically Latin rite Roman Catholics, including a number of Jesuits dedicated to converting Aboriginals; an effort that eventually proved successful.^[90] The first large Protestant communities were formed in the Maritimes after the British conquest of New France, followed by American Protestant settlers displaced by the American Revolution.^[91] The late nineteenth century saw the beginning of a large shift in Canadian immigration patterns. Large numbers of Irish and Southern Europeans immigrants were creating new Roman Catholic communities in English Canada.^[92] The settlement of the west brought significant Eastern Orthodox immigrants from Eastern Europe and Mormon and Pentecostal immigrants from the United States.^[93]