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

Ken Dryden
Born	(1947-08-08) August 8, 1947 (age 64) Hamilton, ON, CAN
Height	6 ft 4 in (1.93 m)
Weight	207 lb (94 kg; 14 st 11 lb)
Position	Goaltender
Caught	Left
Played for	AHL Montreal Voyageurs NHL Montreal Canadiens
National team	Canada
NHL Draft	14th overall, 1964 Boston Bruins
Playing career	1970–1979
Hall of Fame, 1983

Kenneth Wayne Dryden, PC, (born August 8, 1947) is a Canadian politician, lawyer, businessman, author, and former NHL goaltender. He is a member of the Hockey Hall of Fame. Dryden was a Liberal Member of Parliament from 2004 until losing his seat in the 2011 Canadian federal elections to Conservative Mark Adler.

Early life and hockey career[link]

Dryden was born in Hamilton, Ontario,^[1] the son of Murray and Margaret Dryden and brother of Dave Dryden, also an NHL goaltender. Dryden was raised in Islington (then just outside Toronto) and drafted fourteenth overall by the Boston Bruins in the 1964 NHL Amateur Draft. Later the same day, Boston traded Dryden to the Montreal Canadiens, along with Alex Campbell, for Paul Reid and Guy Allen, whom the Bruins highly valued. Dryden was informed by his agent that he had been drafted by the Canadiens, and did not find out until the mid-1970s that he had originally been a Bruin.^[2]

Rather than play in Montreal, Dryden pursued a Bachelor of Arts degree at Cornell University, where he also played hockey until his graduation in 1969. He backstopped the Cornell Big Red to the 1967 National Collegiate Athletic Association championship and to three consecutive ECAC tournament championships under coach Ned Harkness, winning 76 of his 81 varsity starts.^[3] He also was a member of the Canadian amateur national team at the 1969 Ice Hockey World Championship tournament in Stockholm.

Dryden made his NHL debut in 1971 for the Canadiens, playing only six regular-season games after a late-season call-up but sporting a minuscule 1.65 goals-against average. This earned him the number 1 goalie job for the playoffs ahead of veteran All-Star Rogie Vachon, and the Canadiens rode their hot young goalie to win the Stanley Cup. He then became the backbone of 5 more Stanley Cup-winning teams in 1973, 1976, 1977, 1978, and 1979. During that first playoff season, Dryden won the Conn Smythe Trophy (1971), as the playoffs' most valuable player. The following year Dryden won the Calder Trophy, 1972, as the Rookie of the year because the previous year he did not play enough regular season games to become eligible. He remains the only NHL player to ever win the Conn Smythe Trophy before winning the rookie of the year award. In the autumn of 1972 Dryden played for Team Canada in the 1972 Summit Series against the Soviet national ice hockey team.

Dryden played from 1971 to 1979, except for the 1973–74 season, when he was unhappy about the contract that the Canadiens offered him, which he considered less than his market worth, given that he had won the Stanley Cup and Vezina Trophy. He skipped training camp and held out that season, incurring the wrath of Canadiens General Manager Sam Pollock whose previous stars had usually signed for the amount that he had offered. The Canadiens still had a good season, going 45-24-9, but lost in the first round of the playoffs to the New York Rangers in six games. The Canadiens allowed 56 more goals in the 1973–74 season than they had the year before with Dryden.^[4] Dryden used that year to fulfill the requirements for his law degree at McGill and article for a law firm. He retired following the 1978-79 season at age 31.

Compared to most other goaltending greats (and Hockey Hall of Fame players), Dryden's NHL career was extremely short: just over seven full seasons. Therefore, statistically he did not amass record totals in most categories. As he played all his years with a dynasty and retired before he could pass his prime, his statistical percentages are unparalleled. His regular season totals include a .790 winning percentage, a 2.24 goals against average, and, most incredibly, winning 258 games and losing only 57 games while recording 46 shutouts in just 397 NHL games. No other modern goaltender has ever been even remotely close to earning nearly as many shutouts as recording losing games. He won the Vezina Trophy five times for allowing the fewest goals and in the same years was selected as a First Team All-Star. Despite the comparative brevity of his career, in 1998, he was ranked number 25 on The Hockey News' list of the 100 Greatest Hockey Players.

Dryden was so tall, at 6 foot 4 inches (193 cm), that he was often seen during stoppages in play in what became his trademark pose: resting with his blocker propped up by his goalie stick which was angled to its maximum possible height. One of his nicknames was the "four-story goalie".

Dryden was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1983. His #29 was retired by the Canadiens on January 29, 2007, and his #1 which he wore while playing for the Cornell Big Red was retired on February 25, 2010, making him one of only two players to have his number retired by Cornell's hockey program (the other player, Joe Nieuwendyk, had his number retired with Dryden).^[5]

Education[link]

Dryden earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in history at Cornell University's Department of History and a degree in Law at McGill University. He has received honorary doctoral degrees from the University of Ottawa, University of Windsor, York University, McMaster University, Saint Mary’s University, Niagara University and University of British Columbia. At Cornell, he was a member of the Sigma Phi Society and vice-president of the Quill and Dagger society.

Writing career[link]

Dryden wrote one book during his hockey career: Face-Off at the Summit. This was written in diary form and outlined the Canadian experience in the famous Canada vs. Soviet Union series of 1972. The book has been out of print for many years. It is a fairly standard account, unlike The Game which frequently digresses into non-hockey related information.

After retiring from hockey Dryden wrote several more books. His book The Game (1983) was a commercial and critical success, being nominated for a Governor General's Award. His next book, Home Game: Hockey and Life in Canada (1990), written with Roy MacGregor, was developed into an award-winning Canadian Broadcasting Corporation six-part documentary series for television. His fourth book was The moved and the shaken: The story of one man's life (1993). His fifth book, In School: Our Kids, Our Teachers, Our Classrooms (1995), written with Roy MacGregor, was about Canada’s education system. Becoming Canada (2010) argued for a new definition of Canada and its unique place in the world.

Commentator[link]

He served as Ontario's first Youth Commissioner from 1984 to 1986. Dryden worked as a television hockey commentator at the 1980, 1984 and 1988 Winter Olympics. Dryden served as a colour commentator alongside play-by-play man Al Michaels for the American Broadcasting Company's coverage of the famous Miracle on Ice. Just seconds before Mike Eruzione's game winning goal for the USA, Dryden expressed his concern that the U.S. was "relying a little too much on [goaltender] Jim Craig" after Craig had just made a series of great saves.

Executive[link]

Minority owner Larry Tanenbaum hired Dryden to become the president of the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey club in 1997. Pat Quinn became head coach in 1998, and the two men reportedly had a frosty relationship. A few months after joining the Leafs, Quinn took on the General Manager position, reportedly to preempt Dryden from hiring his preferred GM which was former Habs teammate Bob Gainey.^[4]

On August 29, 2003, with the hiring of John Ferguson, Jr. as GM, there was a major management shakeup. Majority owner Steve Stavro was bought out by the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan and he stepped down as chairman in favour of Larry Tanenbaum. Quinn continued as head coach but was relieved of GM duties. Dryden's position was abolished, in favour of having both the Leafs and Raptors managers reporting directly to MLSE President and CEO Richard Peddie. Dryden was shuffled to the less important role of vice-chairman and given a spot on MLSE's board of directors, which was described by commentators as "sitting outside the loop" as he did not report directly to Leafs ownership.^[4][6] He stayed on until 2004 when he resigned to enter politics.

Political career[link]

Dryden joined the Liberal Party of Canada and ran for the House of Commons in the federal election held in June 2004. Dryden had been selected by Prime Minister Paul Martin as a "star candidate" in what is considered a safe Liberal riding. Earlier, on May 13, 2004, incumbent Art Eggleton announced that he would not run for re-election, paving the way for Dryden to contest the Toronto riding of York Centre. Eggleton, who was later appointed to the Senate, denied that the party asked him to step aside.^[7]

While campaigning, a letter sent to Dryden by Ya'acov Brosh, Consul-General of Israel in Toronto was put in Dryden's campaign literature, allegedly without Brosh's permission.^[8] Brosh worried that the letter would be misconstrued as political interference. The Consul-General did give permission to "circulate" the letter but insisted that it was not intended to be any kind of endorsement. The letter was sent to Dryden thanking him for his participation in a ceremony commemorating the 10th anniversary of the assassination of former Israel Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

Dryden was elected to Parliament and was named to Cabinet as Minister of Social Development. He made headlines on February 16, 2005, as the target of a remark by Conservative Member of Parliament Rona Ambrose who said about Dryden, "working women want to make their own choices, we don't need old white guys telling us what to do." Dryden won generally favourable reviews for his performance in Cabinet.

On November 5, 2005, Dryden as Minister of Social Development obtained early-learning and child care deals with all 10 provinces.^[9] He was re-elected in the 2006 federal election. The Liberals were defeated and Paul Martin resigned the party leadership. Interim party and opposition leader Bill Graham named Dryden to his shadow cabinet as health critic. Dryden lost his seat in the 2011 Canadian federal elections to Mark Adler.

Leadership bid[link]

On April 28, 2006, Dryden confirmed rumours^[10] that he would run for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, which would be choosing a successor to Paul Martin at a convention in Montreal on December 2, 2006. A variety of media pundits criticized Dryden's ponderous speaking style and limited French. Supporters argued that few people were strongly opposed to him and that if he ran he could attract more support on later ballots as a consensus candidate.

A poll^[11] found that Dryden's potential pool of support exceeded that of his opponents, due mainly to his former NHL career. However, his fundraising efforts left him well behind the top tier of leadership contenders (Michael Ignatieff, Gerard Kennedy, Stéphane Dion and Bob Rae). Despite initially being a very high profile candidate for leadership, his organizational efforts were disappointing, placing him in the bottom rank of remaining candidates. After gaining less than 5% of first round ballots for the Liberal leadership, Dryden was one of the "bottom four" candidates that had been written off by the media as unlikely to win the Liberal leadership.

In an interview with the Toronto Star on November 13, 2006, Dryden expressed concern that United States Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean should not be speaking at the Liberal Party of Canada's national convention in Montreal on November 29 out of fear that a foreigner would put the party out of touch with most Canadians.^[12]

Dryden came in 5th place on the first ballot with 238 delegates 4.9% of the vote. On the second ballot, he came in last place with 219 votes (4.7%) and was eliminated. He initially threw his support to Bob Rae, but after Rae was eliminated in the third ballot and released all of his delegates, Dryden went over to Stéphane Dion, who went on to win the leadership.

Personal life[link]

Dryden and his wife Lynda have two children and four grandchildren.^[13]

Bibliography[link]

Non-fiction[link]

• Face-Off at the Summit (1973)
• The Game (1983)
• Home Game: Hockey and Life in Canada (with Roy MacGregor, 1990)
• In School: Our Kids, Our Teachers, Our Classrooms (with Roy MacGregor, 1995)
• The Moved and the Shaken (1993)
• Becoming Canada (2010)

Awards and achievements[link]

• Conn Smythe Trophy winner in 1971.
• Calder Memorial Trophy winner in 1972.
• Vezina Trophy winner in 1973, 1976, 1977*, 1978*, 1979*.
• Stanley Cup champion in 1971, 1973, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979.
• Played in 1972, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978 NHL All-Star Games.
• Selected to NHL First All-Star Team in 1973, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979.
• Selected to NHL Second All-Star Team in 1972.
• Inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1983.
• In 1998, he was ranked number 25 on The Hockey News' list of the 100 Greatest Hockey Players.
• His number 29 was retired by the Montreal Canadiens on January 29, 2007.
• His number 1 was retired by the Cornell Big Red on February 25, 2010 making him one of only two players to have his number retired by the Cornell hockey program, the other being Joe Nieuwendyk.

* Shared with Michel Larocque.

Career statistics[link]

Regular season[link]

Playoffs[link]

International[link]

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikinews has related news: Liberal leadership hopeful Ken Dryden outlines vision for Canada

• Ken Dryden's biography at Legends of Hockey
• Ken Dryden's career stats at The Internet Hockey Database
• Ken Dryden's homepage
• Ken Dryden at the Internet Movie Database
• How'd They Vote?: Ken Dryden's voting history and quotes
• Ken Dryden - Parliament of Canada biography