Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (630,000)
UTSC (30,000)
POLB50Y3 (200)
Lecture

A+ Notes: Sovereignty


Department
Political Science
Course Code
POLB50Y3
Professor
Cochraine

This preview shows page 1. to view the full 5 pages of the document.
Sovereignty – Aboriginals and Canadian
Canada @ Confederation:
- 1867: S. Ont (Upper Can), S. Que., NB, NS (prior to Confed. was 1 prov, separated at
Confed.)
- Ont & Que current boundaries 1912
- Confed. Que ½ land mass as present day Que.
- BC – thinking of join Can or USA, but after US Civil war, focus on uniting country not
expanding
- PEI (pop. > all 3 territories combined)
- Man. (1870) present border 1912
- Alb & Sas 1905 – concern of single large prov in West would counter central Can.
influence, therefore 2 prov.
- not created as equal prov. – fed. gov’t controlled NR
- Nfld 1949 – strong sense of pride, anti-Cdn sentiment but not voiced as Que
Confederation Debates:
- Problems:
- Que, NB, NS needed to preserve their identity
- Que. worried about English dominance
- some Ont didn’t want Atl. Can. dilute Ont power.
- Ont & Que both knew Ont was more powerful
- inclusion of Atl. prov. allowed Que to think it would counterweight Ont
- Canada needed room to expand
- how to integrate E-W
- 1867 – Can, wanted sea to sea country
- plan: 1) settle Rupert’s Land
- 2) acquire colony of BC
- 3) build E-W railway & trade [natural trade pattern was N-S, hard to travel
across (ex. Rockies)]
- Options:
- British model:
oUnitary system
oParliamentary supremacy
- American model:
oFederal system
oConstitutional supremacy
-unitary – absol. authority held by central gov’t, regional gov’ts subordinate to central (ex.
Ont. over Tor.)
- division of admin. resp. but no division of final authority
- power of constituent gov’t dependent on central (ex. UK, France)
-federal sys – no supreme level; sovereignty divided b/w levels of gov’t, none is
subordinate/dependent on one another (ex. USA, Canada, Australia)
- central (federal) & sub-central (prov/states)
- doesn’t necessarily mean central & sub-central are equal
- centralized form of federalism – most imprt powers granted to central
- decentralized – most imprt powers given to sub-central
- asymmetrical – diff amount of power given to sub-central (ex. if Que. had
more power than other prov; Can in 1905 b/c Alb/Sas had less power)
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

-confederation sys – central gov’t power dependent on constituent gov’ts (ex. UN,
NATO). This is not federalism.
- ultimate power w/ indiv. members
- UN founded on principles of sovereignty of indiv. states
- only gets power given to them by members
-Canada is not a confederation . never was
Charlottetown Conference, 1864
- John A MacDonald (& English fathers of Confed) wanted unitary
- French/Atl wanted to preserve identities
- prob. of USA: give states too much power, excessive decentralized sys
- southern states lead to Civil War (bloodiest war)
- residual clause of Constitution [Const. spells out powers of gov’t]
- US reserve powers to state
- Canada reserve powers to fed.
- federalism was Amer. idea, un-British
- resisting Amer. influence, preserve British
- Federalist Papers: reason for wanting federalism
- will allow to build very large country (Amer. rationale for
federalism same reason as Cdn rational)
- Amer. if there’s lots of groups, would prevent groups join together
& preserve indiv. rights (Amer. logic diff. from Cdn logic here – Can.
wanted diff groups to have own gov’t)
The Confederation Compromise
- wasn’t unitary, but not decentralized federalism
- prov. s. 92 BNA Act 1867 (or Consti. Act 1867) – hospitals, municipal institutions,
property, civil law (so Que could preserve its unique civil code)
- direct tax (consumer pays directly at time of purchase)
- s. 93 education to prov
- s. 91 military, currency, banks, criminal (in Amer. criminal law is state)
- direct & indirect (integrated into price) tax
- Preamble: residual power federal (centralizing tendency in Can)
Quasi-Federalism?
- Disallowance (s.56) – feds can disallow any act passed by any legislature in Can (even in
prov jurisdiction)
- almost always used against West (rarely vs Que) – social credit policy
- Reservation (s.57) – L-G can reserve signature on legislation pending review w/ feds
(&GG) – most recently 1970s Sas
- fed gov’t can’t legislate in prov areas of juridisction but prov gov’t can’t legislate ub any
area w/o tacit approval of feds
- Result: Cdn gov’t in 1867 wasn’t unitary, but wasn’t wholly federal, it was “quasi-
federal” (K.C. Wheare)
- MacDonald kind of won (almost unitary) – called it Confederation symbolize prov
had power
- now, minor areas of prov more imprt prov more power
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version