Federalism and the Constitution of Canada (review)

Reviewed by: Federalism and the Constitution of Canada Peter H. Russell (bio) David E. Smith. Federalism and the Constitution of Canada. University of Toronto Press. xiii, 225. $24.95 In Federalism and the Constitution of Canada, David Smith has given us another panoramic overview of a fundamental element in the institutional [End Page 708] fabric of Canada. In fact, federalism, as his book explains, is so fundamental that it could be said that ‘Federalism makes us Canadian.’ It is Canada’s distinction, Smith points out, to be the world’s first parliamentary federation. Since David Smith has written seminal books on the three component pasts of parliament – the Crown, the Senate, and the House of Commons – this book on federalism is a nice rounding out of his work. Smith’s treatment of federalism is not legalistic. He combines the traditional institutional analysis of K.C. Wheare with the more sociological approach of William Livingstone. The result is a much more literary account of Canadian federalism than we have had heretofore. Indeed, one of the most engaging sections of his book is his discussion of how and why so many people write about federalism. It is typical of David Smith’s ability to illuminate significant things that were staring us in the face but have not been noticed before. Why isn’t there a literature on unitary government? he asks. His discussion of the peculiar inclination among academics to write about federalism helps us understand why so much of the writing is comparative. From his institutional/sociological perspective, Canadian federalism is two-dimensional. On the ‘horizontal’ plane, federalism is territorial and intergovernmental. Federalism on the ‘vertical’ plane responds to cultural and ethnic, not territorial, differentiation, and federal relations link societies to governments. It is a limitation of Smith’s analysis that he sees this ethnic and cultural dimension of Canadian federalism entirely in terms of the English Protestant/French Catholic dualism that was predominant at Confederation and fails to relate this dimension of Canadian federalism to the position of aboriginal peoples in Canada. There seems to be no room in Smith’s thinking about Canada as a multinational federal state. Smith’s consideration of the territorial dimension of Canadian federalism also seems excessively traditional in excluding the three northern territories. One of the challenges facing Canadian federalism today is finding a way of enabling citizens north of the sixtieth parallel to enjoy the local self-government benefit that federalism confers without giving full provincial status to jurisdictions whose total population is less than that of Prince Edward Island. In dealing with Quebec, Smith hews a line congenial to English Canadian nationalists. He sees the Fathers of Confederation as being of one mind with John A. Macdonald in wanting Canada to be a highly centralized federation. Like Trudeau, he would have English-French dualism find its main constitutional expression in Canada-wide minority language rights and a bilingual federal government. While he acknowledges Quebec’s cultural significance, he does not discuss how ever since Confederation this has generated a much deeper commitment to a strict federal ethic among the Quebecois. His book pays scant attention to the [End Page 709] francophone Quebec constitutional literature that accuses English Canada of betraying true federalism. But biases in any discussion of Canadian federalism are inescapable. Readers, including Quebec readers, should not be put off by Smith’s leanings. Anyone interested in the distinctive ways in which Canadians are governed has much to learn from Federalism and the Constitution of Canada. No one explains as well as Smith the logic behind basing Senate representation on regional blocs. One of his memorable aphorisms is that the difference between the two North American federations is that ‘federalism in the United States lies in the legislative branch and in Canada in the executive branch.’ Reflecting on this observation should slow down those who would make the Canadian Senate a replica of the American and help us appreciate David Smith’s great gift for pointing out the interconnectedness of the institutions through which Canadians are governed. Peter H. Russell Department of Political Science, University of Toronto Copyright © 2012 University of Toronto Press Incorporated

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.