Tag Archives: History

British Columbia

Leave a reply

British Columbia in Canada

Electoral History of British Columbia: The Importance of Being English

When it was founded in 1849, the colony of Vancouver Island had virtually no independent settlers; it was still just a fur trading post inhabited by employees of the Hudson’s Bay Company. Under the circumstances, the governor felt obliged not only to postpone election of an assembly indefinitely, but to administer the colony without the aid of a council. In subsequent years, only a few dozen colonists came to settle there, but in London’s eyes, this did not matter: democracy carried obligations. In 1856, the secretary of state for the colonies ordered the governor to call an elected assembly. He was instructed to allow all freeholders with at least 20 acres to vote, including absentee landowners, who could vote through their agents living on the land. In August of the same year, after the colony’s 40-odd electors had voted, the seven members of the smallest legislative assembly in the history of British North America held their first session.

In 1859, it was decided that new eligibility criteria were needed to increase the number of voters. However, the presence nearby of a band of adventurers, panning for gold in the Fraser River, prompted conservatism on the part of the legislature, which gave the vote to male British subjects age 21 or older who had lived in the colony for four months and who met at least one of the following conditions: ownership of 20 acres of land; ownership, for three months or more, of property assessed at £50; six months’ occupancy of property generating annual rent of £12 or more; 12 months farming 20 acres of farmland as a sharecropper for at least one quarter of the crop; or the practice of surgery, medicine or law, or possession of a diploma from a British college or university. These selection criteria would still be in use when Vancouver Island joined British Columbia in 1866.

In 1857, the discovery of gold on land controlled by the Hudson’s Bay Company prompted London to establish a new colony to protect its jurisdiction there. In August 1858, the territory of New Caledonia became a Crown colony known as British Columbia. More than 10,000 prospectors were already sifting feverishly through the gold-bearing sands along the Fraser River. They came mainly from the United States, but also from virtually every country in Europe. As they were a transient population, London postponed establishing parliamentary institutions in British Columbia.

In the meantime, in the hope of attracting British immigrants, land was sold cheap, but only to British subjects. In 1863, the authorities deemed that there were enough British colonists to warrant representative institutions for the colony. However, to ensure that the settled population outweighed the transient population, which had grown during the 1858 and 1862 gold rushes, the governor proposed to set up a legislative council with two thirds of its membership appointed by the Crown and the other third elected by the people. London agreed.

For the first election, the governor subdivided the territory into a number of electoral districts and allowed the residents of each district to define their own criteria for eligibility to vote. The citizens of the district of New Westminster decided that voters would have to be British subjects and have lived in the district at least three months; voters also had to own a freehold assessed at £20 or more, lease property for an annual rent of at least £12 or own land, freehold or by pre-emptive right, assessed at £20 or more. Two other districts, Douglas and Lillooet, adopted the same rules. In the other, more remote districts, there were no restrictions: anyone who wanted to could vote. The situation remained unchanged until Vancouver Island joined British Columbia in November 1866, a union prompted by the end of the gold rush.

The colonial government then decided to abolish the legislative assembly of Vancouver Island and retain the legislative council, extending it to include the new part of the colony. For the first election, the voter selection criteria varied from one electoral district to another. The three districts on Vancouver Island kept the rules established in the 1859 act, when the island was a separate colony. In the mainland districts, there were no voting restrictions. Only the district of New Westminster again took the initiative of setting conditions for exercise of the vote, though these were less restrictive than in 1863: voters had to have lived in the district for three months and be neither Chinese nor “Indian.” In the other districts, anyone who wished to could vote.

In 1868, on the eve of another election, the governor decided that the rules in force in the district of New Westminster would also apply to the Vancouver Island districts. Two years later, it was London that imposed restrictions on the right to vote, applicable to the entire colony: the vote was restricted to male British subjects age 21 years or older who could read and write English. These conditions, particularly the last one, ruled out Aboriginal people (who constituted at least half the population), while the need to be a British subject excluded a large segment of the population of American origin. London imposed these restrictions on the eve of a referendum-style vote on whether British Columbia should join Confederation, clearly with a view to assuring British Columbia’s approval.

The plan succeeded. In 1871, just before joining Confederation, British Columbia introduced further restrictions on the vote: to exercise the right, voters had to have been born British subjects, be at least 21 years of age, be able to read English and have lived in the colony for at least six months. They also had to own a freehold with a net value of $250 or a leasehold producing net annual revenues of $40, or occupy a dwelling generating net annual revenues of $40. Those who held a duly registered pre-emptive title on 100 acres of land or a duly registered mining licence could also vote. The same privilege was accorded to those who paid $40 or more annually for housing or $200 annually for room and board. In addition to meeting the conditions just outlined, the names of prospective voters had to have been published on an electoral list, and any taxes owing to the province had to be paid before a vote could be cast. Finally, the law prohibited from voting anyone convicted of treason or other serious crimes, unless they had been pardoned for the offence or had completed their sentence. Judges, police personnel and returning officers were treated the same way as criminals – they were deprived of the vote while in office.

Source: “A History of the Vote in Canada” (Ottawa, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, 2007)

Resources

See Also

  • Elections
  • Vote

Notes

Order in Council

Leave a reply

The Order-in-Council in Canada

In the Origins of New Brunswick

The order-in-council of June 18, 1784 was in response to a report from the Board of Trade on the form and cost of the government of the planned province of New Brunswick, and also St. John’s Island (P. E. I.) and Cape Breton.

The report began with a preamble that described the Loyalist situation and noted that “His Majesty having taken the same into His Royal Consideration has thought it proper that the Province of Nova Scotia should be divided into two parts, by drawing the line of separation from the Mouth of the Musquat River to it’s [sic] source, and from thence across the Isthmus into the nearest part of the Bay Verte, and that the Tract of Country bounded by the Gulph of St. Lawrence on the East, the Province of Quebec on the North; the Territories of the United States on the West, and the Bay of Fundy on the South; should be erected into a Government under the Name of New Brunswick with a Civil Establishment suitable to it’s [sic] Extent.”

After the preamble, the report recommended that New Brunswick should have a government “analogous to that of Nova Scotia” with an annual cost of £3100 to commence June 24. It also requested permission to begin appointing officials for the new province. What the order-in-council actually did was to approve this report and the annual expenses, and to authorize Lord Sydney to appoint officials:

“HIS MAJESTY taking the said Report into Consideration, was pleased, with the advice of His Privy Council, to approve thereof, and also of the Estimates of the Annual Expence of the said Establishments, and to Order, as it is hereby Ordered, that the Right Honourable Lord Sydney, One of His Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State, do receive His Majesty’s Royal Pleasure for the appointment of the several Officers proposed as necessary for the Administration of Government, so far as relates to his Department.”

The order-in-council has been reprinted in both the 1952 and 1973 editions of the Revised Statutes of New Brunswick, and also as an appendix to Pincombe (pp. 51-54).

Pincombe (see below) recommended that June 18 be celebrated as a New Brunswick natal day (p. 25). Unfortunately, New Brunswick Day is still celebrated on the first Monday in August, which is a completely meaningless date. (See the New Brunswick Day Act, R.S.N.B., c. N-4.1 on the Province’s website).

Source: Craig Walsh.

Order in Council

Definition of Order in Council by Rand Dyck and Christopher Cochrane (in their book “Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches”) in the context of political science in Canada: A formal, legal decision made by the prime minister and Cabinet (Governor in Council), including regulations and appointments.

Resources

See Also

  • Politics
  • Political Science

Resources

Further Reading

If you’re interested in diving deeper, our reading included:

  • Hamilton, William B. The Macmillan Book of Canadian Place Names. Macmillan Co. of Canada Ltd. Toronto. 1978. p. 81.
  • Hamilton, William B. Place Names of Atlantic Canada. University of Toronto Press. Toronto. 1996. p. 22.
  • Jarvis, W. M. “Royal Commission and Instructions to Governor Thomas Carleton, August, 1784”. Collections of the New Brunswick Historical Society. No. 6 (1905). pp. 391 – 438.
  • Lawrence, J. W. Foot-Prints; or Incidents in Early History of New Brunswick (1783 – 1883). J. & A. McMillan. Saint John. 1883. p. 6. (CIHM Microfiche 08948)
  • Lawson, Jessie I. and Sweet, Jean M. Our New Brunswick Story. Canada Publishing Co. Ltd. Toronto. c1945-52. p. 149-150.
  • New Brunswick. Revised Statutes of New Brunswick, 1952. Volume IV. pp. 5-7.
  • New Brunswick. Revised Statutes of New Brunswick, 1973. Index & Appendices. Appendix III.
  • Pincombe, C. Alexander. The Birth of a Province: Pertinent Historic Dates in the Bicentennial Year: 1984. New Brunswick Bicentennial Office. 1980.
  • Raymond, W. O. “A Sketch of the Life and Administration of General Thomas Carleton, First Governor of New Brunswick.” Collections of the New Brunswick Historical Society . No. 6 (1905). pp. 439 – 480.

New Brunswick

Leave a reply

New Brunswick in Canada

History of New Brunswick: A Fragmented Colony

When the British took Louisbourg in 1758, several small Acadian communities lay scattered across the vast territory of New Brunswick. Some, situated along the southern shore of the Baie des Chaleurs, would become towns like Caraquet, Shippegan and Miscou. Others were situated at the mouths of rivers that emptied into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and still others on the north shore of the Bay of Fundy and in the Saint John Valley. As they had done elsewhere, the British conducted a deportation policy for several years, and, as elsewhere, many Acadians evaded deportation by fleeing to the bush, beyond the reach of English bayonets, particularly along the headwaters of the Saint John River.

In 1763, New Brunswick was merged with Nova Scotia, but the London authorities lost interest in the region. Over the years, several hundred Acadian families returned from exile, while only a few thousand British emigrants settled there, mainly in the Saint John Valley. By the end of the American Revolution, New Brunswick was still very sparsely populated.

The flood of Loyalists into Nova Scotia prompted profound change. The Loyalists dreamed of “a stable, rural society governed by an able tightly knit oligarchy of Loyalist gentry” (DCB V, 156), a dream that translated into a profound distrust of the innovative and democratic spirit of the Americans. Nova Scotia’s existing population was largely of American origin and took a dim view of the massive influx of Loyalists. In 1784, to ease the political tensions caused by their arrival, London separated the territory of New Brunswick from Nova Scotia to accommodate Loyalist settlement. Between 15,000 and 20,000 Loyalists settled in New Brunswick and were later joined by immigrants of Scottish, Irish and English origin.

Until the mid-nineteenth century and even beyond, colonization of New Brunswick bore little resemblance to that of its sister colonies, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. The colony consisted of a series of separate communities that had very little contact with each other, with the result that settlers in each isolated region were generally unaware of conditions elsewhere but vigorously supported any measure intended to meet their own needs. As a result, businessmen and politicians from the various regions represented conflicting interests and proposed divergent solutions. In this situation, the electorate tends to play a less significant role than when there are political parties promoting a platform or advocating specific measures affecting the population as a whole.

When New Brunswick obtained its status as a colony in 1784, the first governor was given the usual orders: to govern with the advice of his executive council until circumstances favoured establishment of a legislative assembly. In the fall of 1785, the circumstances were favourable. The number of freeholders was extremely small, so the governor gave the right to vote to any white male age 21 or over who had lived in the colony at least three months and who agreed to take the oath of allegiance. But these liberal criteria disappeared in a flash when, the day after the first election, the losing candidate in Westmorland County complained to the legislative assembly that he had been defeated by the Acadian vote. In January 1786, the assembly resolved that voting by Roman Catholics had been illegal, being contrary to the laws of England. The assembly then unseated the winning candidate and seated his opponent. In this way, the votes of Acadians were invalidated.

Five years later, the assembly adopted New Brunswick’s first electoral law. It also reiterated its January 1786 resolution denying Catholics the vote, enabling sheriffs, who oversaw the elections, to discount the votes of anyone who refused to take the three oaths of state. Once again, Jews found themselves excluded by the same provisions that disenfranchised Catholics.

The requirements of the electoral law were among the strictest of any in the British North American colonies. To be eligible to vote in a given constituency, an individual had to be 21 or older and own property in the riding free of any duties or rents and assessed at £25 or more, or own similar property in another riding assessed at £50 or more. The requirements reflected the conservative mentality of the ruling class in New Brunswick, which had received a large proportion of the Loyalists who had previously held important civilian and military positions in New England. This class was inclined to restrict the vote to major landowners. At the time the law was enacted, a number of settlers owned enough land to be eligible to vote, but a steadily growing number of poorer immigrants swelled the ranks of those ineligible to vote.

These restrictive requirements remained in force for more than half a century, with one exception: in 1810, the assembly did away with the mandatory three oaths, enabling Catholics and Jews to vote. In 1848, however, the Assembly explicitly withdrew the vote from women who met the property requirements. The women’s vote had been granted only once before, in the County of Kent in 1830. Had others attempted to have this repeated? From the legislative measure of 1848, it would seem so.

From about the 1820s, in the face of strict eligibility requirements, more and more people took to voting illegally, often going to the polling stations in such large numbers that election officials were unable to verify whether everyone was eligible. Following each general election, the ordinary business of the legislative assembly would often be paralyzed for days, even weeks, because members had to investigate contested elections, an increasingly common phenomenon.

The assembly procrastinated for several decades before adopting a new law in 1855 to extend the franchise. Still eligible to vote were all freeholders owning property assessed at £25 or more; they were joined by anyone whose annual income, combined with the value of his real and personal property, was at least £100. It was still necessary, of course, to be a British subject age 21 or older; a foreigner could obtain this status only after residing in the colony for seven years. In short, this legislation gave the right to vote to almost all property owners and to those in the upper income bracket, but it still excluded the vast majority of labourers and workers. At Confederation, New Brunswick’s 1855 electoral law was still in effect.

Source: “A History of the Vote in Canada” (Ottawa, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, 2007)

Resources

See Also

  • Elections
  • Vote

Notes

Act of Union

Leave a reply

Act of Union (1841) in Canada

The Act of Union was by and large based on the ideas about assimilation put forward by Durham, who saw in the conflict a confrontation of two races and, in Francophone society, an atrophied cultural group that hobbled Canada’s expansion.

The Act of Union was passed by the Parliament in London on July 23, 1840, and came into force on February 10, 1841. It introduced numerous reforms. The two Canadas were to become one United Canada, with one government. This United Canada was to keep the institutions established by the Constitutional Act of 1791: a governor who was answerable to the British Parliament, an executive council appointed by the Crown, a legislative council of 24 members, appointed for life, and a house of assembly of 84 members, half to be elected by Canada East and the other half by Canada West . Officially, Canada East and Canada West simply replaced the names Lower Canada and Upper Canada. In practice, however, the former names did not die quickly.

The implementation of political union, which unified the economy as well, greatly pleased the Canadian business class. However, it only made the French Canadians angry, for several clauses of the constitution humiliated them. For example, Canada East, which had a larger population than Canada West, was allotted the same number of elected representatives — a breach of the principle of democracy. The civil list was raised to 75,000 pounds per year, and elected members no longer had any control over it. Also, section 41 of the Act of Union decreed that English was to be the only official language of the country. This was the first time that England had prohibited French in a constitutional text.

The objective pursued by England in the Act of Union was clear: hammer together a British-style parliamentary system with an artificial majority, while waiting for immigration to run its course and give the British a real majority. Such a system would in all likelihood adopt policies favourable to British colonization. So it was that French Canadians began their existence as a minority.

The measures of 1841 created deep wounds. In the Québec City region, petitions called for the abolition of the Act. Some people suggested withdrawal from political life. The reaction was so intense that, in 1848, London had to recognize and accept the use of French.

At that time, the great French-Canadian champion was Sir Louis-Hippolyte La Fontaine. During the rebellion, he had developed his political philosophy around the notion that political parties must be based on “opinions” instead of “origins.” He felt that social peace and prosperity would happen of their own accord once racial distinctions were rooted out of public administration and institutions were given freedom.

As a pragmatic politician who strongly denounced the discriminatory elements of the Union regime, he invited fellow French Canadians to get involved in political life. Without being aware of it, therefore, Sir Louis-Hippolyte La Fontaine was urging his compatriots to take the road that was to lead to Confederation.

Act of Union

Definition of Act of Union by Rand Dyck and Christopher Cochrane (in their book “Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches”) in the context of political science in Canada: The 1840 act that united the colonies of Upper and Lower Canada into the colony of Canada, partly designed to assimilate the French.

Resources

See Also

  • Politics
  • Political Science

Responsible Government

Leave a reply

Responsible Government in Canada

Canadian Parliament Responsible Government

One of the main tenets of the Canadian constitution is responsible government, or holding the government accountable to the people of Canada. Specifically, the prime minister and cabinet ministers are accountable to the House of Commons and must maintain the support of a majority of its members. Central to the concept of responsible government are the principles of ministerial responsibility. These principles were derived from the parliamentary experience of Britain and were adopted in Canada when the country was founded. There are two parts to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility: collective and individual. (1)

The Struggle for Responsible Government in Newfoundland

Documents which trace the evolution of Newfoundland from a British fishing station to a largely independent self-governing Dominion.

  • The Newfoundland Act of 1832: An Act of the British Parliament which continued in force several earlier Acts pertaining to Newfoundland, and provided for the appropriation and application of funds raised in the Colony.
  • Commission Appointing Sir Thomas Cochrane Governor, 1832
  • Instructions to Sir Thomas Cochrane, 1832
  • Royal Instructions to the Governor of Newfoundland, 1832
  • Proclamation defining Electoral Districts, 1832
  • The Newfoundland Act, 1842: Provided for an amalgamated Assembly with a combined membership of elected and appointed members.
  • The Newfoundland Act, 1846: The Newfoundland Act of 1842 was, by its Article VIII, to expire on September 1, 1846. This Act continued it in force until September 1, 1847.
  • The Newfoundland Act, 1847: The Newfoundland Act of 1842 was in force until September 1, 1847. By this Act it was allowed to expire, returning Newfoundland to its pre-1842 constitution. At the same time, Articles I, II, II, and IV of the 1842 Act, dealing with property and residency restrictions on membership in the Assembly, the appropriation of revenues, and simultaneous elections, were made permanent.
  • Instructions to Governor Darling, 1855: Established the principles of Responsible Government in Newfoundland, whereby the executive authority is responsible to the elected legislature.
  • Letters Patent, 1876: Made permanent the Office of Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Newfoundland “and its Dependencies.” Prior to this, the office was reconstituted with the Letters Patent appointing each successive Governor. The Letters Patent also make certain provisions relating to the Executive Council, the Legislative Council, the General Assembly, and the powers of the Governor.
  • Letters Patent, 1905: Modified the Letters Patent of 1876 to provide for the administration of the Government during the absence of the Governor.
  • Motion by A.P. Herbert, 1949: A motion circulated in the British House of Commons by Independent M.P. A.P. Herbert, who favoured restoration of Responsible Government to Newfoundland.
  • Proposed amendment to the Newfoundland Act, 1949: An amendment to the Newfoundland Act proposed by Independent M.P. A.P. Herbert, who had toured Newfoundland and Labrador as part of a delegation from the British House of Commons.
  • Proposed Newfoundland (Liberation) Act, 1949: A Private Member’s Bill drafted by Independent M.P. A.P. Herbert, who favoured restoration of Responsible Government to Newfoundland.

Responsible Government: History

Responsible Government, without ” Representation. by Population”

In recommending that responsible government should be brought into effect in the united province, Lord Durham expressly warned against any union of Upper and Lower Canada which should not be based on the principle of representation by population. “I am averse,” he said, “to every plan that has been proposed for giving an equal number of members to the two provinces, in order to attain the temporary end of out numbering the French, because I think the same object will be obtained without any violation of the principles of representation.” When Poulett Thomson, afterwards Lord Sydenham, was sent out to carry into effect Lord Durham’s recommendations, this warning was, however, ignored. The Act of Union of 1841 gave to each part of the united province an equal representation in the united legislature; and thus introduced into the government of the colony a dualism or quasi-federalism that ultimately brought about the breakdown of all government. Under these circumstances, the inauguration of responsible government in united Canada did not proceed under the best auspices. Sydenham, it is true, set up in Canada the machinery of responsible government. He transformed the old Executive Council, the members of which seldom sat in the Legislative Assembly, and sometimes not even in the Legislative Council, into a counterpart of the British cabinet, the members of which were not only (as a rule) heads of departments, but were also members of parliament. But, because he was unwilling to admit the rebellious majority in French Canada to a share in government, he was unwilling to admit the principle of responsible government. With him the Council was “a council to be consulted and no more.” He presided over the meetings of council, and in fact dominated it, so that he became virtually his own prime minister. His dexterity enabled him to preserve the unstable equilibrium of this position during his short period of office; but his system of government broke down under his successor Sir Charles Bagot. Bagot’s ill-health compelled him to absent himself frequently from the council board, so that the office of prime minister began to emerge; and in 1843 he was compelled to accept a ministry reflecting the majority in the Legislative Assembly, including a number of the rebels of 1837. The principle of responsible government had a brief set-back under Bagot’s successor, Sir Charles (afterwards, Lord) Metcalfe, who, like Sydenham, regarded the Council as a body “to be consulted, and no more,” and who, after a disagreement with his council, appealed to the country in 1845, and won a temporary triumph at the polls. But in 1848 there came out to Canada as governor-general Lord Elgin, the son-in-law of Lord Durham, who was resolved to put the principle of responsible government into full operation; and the triumph of this principle was achieved by Elgin’s admittance to office of the Baldwin-Lafontaine administration in 1848 and his assent to the Rebellion Losses Bill in 1849 [See the British reaction to the Bill]. In the other provinces of British North America , responsible government was introduced shortly after this.

The sphere in which responsible government operated was, however, at first circumscribed. Durham had recommended that it should be operative “except on points involving strictly imperial interests”; but these interests were deemed to be such important matters as crown lands, trade relations, defence, and foreign policy. It was not long before the crown lands were handed over to the Canadian parliament for administration; the control of the tariff, and hence of trade relations, was successfully asserted by the Canadian government in 1859; and most of the British troops in Canada were withdrawn in 1862. But the control of foreign policy was postponed for over half a century; and there were still in 1874 so many shackles on the will of the Canadian people that Edward Blake was able to describe them as “four millions of Britons who are not free.” The constitutional history of Canada since 1849 has, indeed, been the story of the way in which these shackles have been gradually struck off.

Source: W. Stewart WALLACE, “History, Constitutional”, in The Encyclopedia of Canada, Vol. 3, Toronto, University Associates of Canada, 1948, 396p., pp. 147-153.

More about the Canadian Parliament

Responsible Government

Definition of Responsible Government by Rand Dyck and Christopher Cochrane (in their book “Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches”) in the context of political science in Canada: A form of government in which the political executive must retain the confidence of the elected legislature or assembly and must resign or call an election if and when it is defeated on a vote of nonconfidence.

Resources

See Also

  • Politics
  • Political Science

Resources

Notes and References

  1. Encarta Online Encyclopedia

See Also

Further Reading

  • Sir John G. Bourinot, A manual of the constitutional history of Canada (Toronto, 2nd. ed., 1901)
  • W., P. M. Kennedy, The constitution of Canada : An introduction to its development and law ( Oxford , 1922).
  • W. Houston, Documents illustrative of the Canadian constitution (Toronto, 1891)
  • H. E: Egerton and W. I. Grant, Canadian constitutional development (London , 1907)
  • W. P. M. Kennedy, Statutes, treaties, and documents of the Canadian constitution (Oxford, 1930)
  • A. Shortt and A. G. Doughty, Documents relating to the, constitutional history of Canada, 1759-1791 (2 vols., Ottawa, 191.8)
  • A. G. Doughty and D. A. McArthur, Documents relating to the constitutional history of Canada, 1791-1818 (Ottawa, 1914)
  • A. . G. Doughty and Norah Story, Documents relating to the constitutional history of Canada , 1819-1828 (Ottawa , 1935).

Immigration

Leave a reply

Immigration in Canada

The Great Depression

The 1930’s brought misery to Canadians as low wages and high rates of unemployment became the norm at the same time as prices remained comparatively high. Unemployment reached about 30% in 1933, and the percentage was even higher for certain categories of workers, or in certain regions. For example, the rate of unemployment among the young males between the ages of 16 and 24 of Quebec City reached 46% in 1936-1937 if we are to trust the result of a survey conducted by the local chapter of the Association catholique de la jeunesse canadienne. It should be borne in mind that unemployment insurance did not yet exist in the 1930’s. As well, Canadians had always been conditioned to think of immigration as essentially serving the economic interest of Canada. Immigration had been supported by ordinary Canadians to the extent that the immigrants “knew their place”, that they contributed to the Canadian economy, that is that they settled on farms in the great western prairies of Canada, that they were not seen as competing for the often scarce industrial jobs of Canada. When the job market contracted, few in Canada were prepared to support the entrance of any large number of immigrants. These could only be seen as potentially entering Canada to compete for jobs and depressing wages further. Governments were accutely aware of these feelings and adjusted the system accordingly. Thus, in 1907, in 1913, and again in 1919-1921 – all years witnessing economic strains in Canada – steps had been taken to reduce immigration.

As time passed, Canadian governments became increasingly effective at regulating immigration and matching it to the impulses of the economy. In this respect, the Great Depression was to decimate immigration in Canada. Its first impact can be measured by looking at the rapidly rising number of deportations of immigrants that occured during the Great Depression. If immigrants lost their job, which was frequently the case since they were the last to be hired, they were ruthlessly deported from Canada. Between 1930 and 1934, 16,765 immigrants were deported from Canada as having become “public charge”; by 1935, the number of deportations had reached more than 28,000. These numbers were several times the rate of deportation seen in the 1920’s. As time passed, the grounds for deportation became more and more varied: one could be deported for union activities, or for membership in the Communist Party, for medical reasons or for petty charges of criminality, such as vagrancy, a not uncommon charge during the Great Depression.

The ruthless application of deportation shows to what extent immigration was unpopular in the country during the depression years. In this context, immigrants found few friends in Canada. The first few years of the Great Depression saw several restrictive regulations adopted by the Canadian government (P. C. 1113 in 1929; P. C. 659 and 1957 in 1930 and P. C. 695 in 1931). The net effect of these regulations was that, by 1932, only Americans, British subjects and agriculturalists with enough capital to start farming in Canada could be admitted. In the process, the number of landed immigrants into Canada had gone from 166,783 in 1928 to 14,382 in 1933 (and was to continue to decrease until 1937). Thus, Jews attempted to enter Canada in the 1930’s at a time when the country had nearly entirely closed its doors to immigrants and when immigration was likely at its most unpopular level since Confederation. As historians Robert Bothwell, Ian Drummond and John English put it in their book entitled Canada, 1900-1945: “For Canadians, the Great Depression was the overwhelming fact of the decade (p. 295).” It should also be noted that the percentage of Jews in the overall number of immigrants to Canada in the 1930’s did not decrease when we compare it to the situation that prevailed in the period of 1896 to 1929.

Canadian immigration policy before 1945

Canada did not have a refugee policy. Essentially, the country did not distinguish between refugees – who clearly would require special considerations, if not the total suspension of the ordinary rules – and regular immigrants. Consequently, refugees were required to follow all the regulations that were imposed on ordinary immigrants. How could a Jewish refugee from Germany who had been dispossessed of all his worldly possessions show he could support himself in Canada? Canada had admitted some groups of refugees in the XIXth century (Hutterites and Mennonites for example) but only because these were farmers who came as a block settlement at a time of intensive western development, and who otherwise qualified under Canadian Immigration Law. Other groups, such as Armenians for example, had been largely denied asylum in Canada (see Isabel Kaprielian-Churchill, “Armenian Regugees and their Entry into Canada, 1919-1930”, Canadian Historical Review, Vol. LXXI, No. 1 (Spring 1990): 80-108). Only after the Second World War did Canada begin to develop a significant refugee policy. The absence of a generous and sensitive refugee policy in Canada during the Great Depression was hugely felt by Jews in the 1930’s.

Some issues

1.Open doors (only as to overall number of immigrants); the more immigrants would come to Canada, the better it would be. We do not seek to restrict numbers and will only significantly do so during the Great Depression (1929-1939). See the following pages for number of immigrants by country of origin (1900-1920) (1921-1945) or by region (1900-1970). (More data with different periods defined)
2.Economically “self-serving” : “Only farmers need apply” (farmers, servants, labourers, miners). Ideally, immigrants should go West to farm the Prairies. Prairie farm settlement was part of the design to make the National Policy function appropriately. A “bad immigrant” was one that moved to the cities of the East to compete with Canadians for scarce industrial jobs. Ex. Memorandum from Clifford Sifton to Wilfrid Laurier (April 15, 1901): “Our desire is to promote the immigration of farmers and farm labourers. We have not been disposed to exclude foreigners of any nationality who seemed likely to become successful agriculturalists”. However, the needs of business were of paramount importance. It required low paid workers for jobs that Canadians simply would not do. Consequently, the federal Government was prepared to accommodate business so that the Canadian economy would prosper. Ex. it was not difficult for the Canadian Pacific Railway to “import” Chinese labour to finish its transcontinental railway. Such was also the case in the mines and lumber camps of Canada.
3.”Assimilation”. The model: white, anglo-saxons, protestant (WASP). The closer you are to the model, the more likely you are to be accepted by the government and the people of Canada. The more you divert from the model, the more “foreign” you are, the more difficult for you to enter Canada and the more likely you will face discrimination by ordinary Canadians once here. Section 38 of the Canadian Immigration Act of 1910 gave the Canadian Government the power to prohibit the entry “of immigrants belonging to any race deemed unsuited to the climate or requirements of Canada”. People from “warm countries” were deemed unsuited for immigration to Canada.

a) “Preferred Category”: British and Americans, West Europeans. Example: the Empire Settlement Scheme, 1923.

b) “Acceptable Category” (although not “preferred”). These are Sifton’s immigrants in “sheep-skin coats”. East Europeans (Russians, Ukrainians, Poles); South Europeans (Italians, Greeks, Spaniards). If they go West and farm, they will be accepted although considered “foreign”, as long as they know “their place”. A regulation of 1923 classified the following countries as “non-preferred”: Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Russia, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. By this regulation, immigration from these countries was limited to agricultural and domestic workers and sponsored immigrants. However, as few British and American immigrants sought to enter Canada in the 1920’s, the Railway Agreements of 1925 was made to favour the coming of East Europeans to Canada. The lowest in the category of “not preferred” were the Jews (they divert from the model by virtue of their language, culture, religion… as well as tend to go to the cities of Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg; in 1921, only 4% of Canadian Jews lived in rural Canada); they were the most subjected to discrimination of all the white settlers to Canada in the pre-1945 period.

c) The “Non Preferred” and “Not Acceptable” category: Members of visible minorities. Each of these groups faced prejudice and discrimination by Canadians and their government. Laws and/or regulations were issued to prevent their coming to Canada. Yet, businesses (such as railways) frequently wanted them admitted to Canada so that a pool of “cheap labour” be available for them. These immigrants did jobs that nobody else in Canada wanted to do.

The following were the means used to keep members of visible minorities out of Canada:

i. The Chinese: Head Taxes are imposed (1885, 1900, 1903) by 1903, the head-tax was set at $500; minimum financial requirement (1908); the financial requirement was a response to the 1907 anti-Asian riots in Vancouver. Chinese Exclusion law (1923);

ii. “Indians”: “Continuous Journey” regulation was implemented (1908); see the Komagata Maru Incident (1914);

iii) Blacks: Health Regulations were used to keep them away – they were deemed “unsuited to Canada” by virtue of the climate of Canada; further, the Canadian Government hired a preacher in the period of 1908-1910 to visit the Creek-Negroes of Oklahoma and to discourage them from emigrating to the Canadian West; the Winnipeg immigration office went as far as paying a bonus to any immigration officer who rejected a black applicant. In 1911, a regulation to prohibit the entrance of Blacks into Canada was prepared by the Laurier Government. It was not issued because Laurier’s government was defeated in the general elections of the same year.

iv. Japanese: “Gentlemen Agreement”.

The post 1945 immigration policy

William Lyon Mackenzie King on Immigration (1947)

This statement of policy by Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada at the time, was made before the House of Commons:

“The policy of the government is to foster the growth of the population of Canada by the encouragement of immigration. The government will seek by legislation, regulation and vigorous administration, to ensure the careful selection and permanent settlement of such numbers of immigrants as can be advantageously absorbed in our national economy. It is a matter of domestic policy […] The people of Canada do not wish as a result of mass immigration to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population. Large scale immigration from the Orient would change the fundamental composition of the Canadian population”.

In 1947, Mackenzie King consigned in his diary that he had trouble gaining acceptance of a post-war immigration policy restricting entry of Asians into Canada because some of his cabinet colleagues thought that the policy should be harsher while others opposed it as discriminatory. This opposition was a clear sign that things were changing in Canada.

More abut the post 1945 immigration policy

Another sign of change was a case raised in 1946 by the NSAACP (Nova Scotia Association for the Advancement of Coloured People). The Association raised money to help Viola Desmond fight segregation in Nova Scotia movie theatres. Desmond, a beautician from Halifax, had been arrested in New Glasgow when it was found she had sat downstairs in a movie theatre instead of the balcony were blacks were to sit. She was thrown in jail and fined for attempting to defraud the government of Nova Scotia of one cent of amusement tax (seats in the balcony were less expensive). For this offence, she was sentenced to 30 days in jail or a $20.00 fine. She paid the fine but appealed the decision. Eventually, the case was thrown out of Court on technicalities. However, there was such bad publicity across Canada around this case of discrimination that such laws were soon abandoned.

Characteristics of the Canadian immigration policy after 1945:

1.The progressive nature of the changes.

2.Immigration was increasingly regulated around economic cycles; immigration was increased in times of prosperity and decreased in poorer economic conditions. The economic incentive around immigration remained very strong. Mostly skilled and professional workers were sought. Here, again, changes were slow and progressive. Still in 1949, A. R. M. Lower, a prominent Canadian historian, could write in MacLean’s Magazine (May 15, 1949, p. 70): “Immigrant labour must be cheap or we would not seek it. The word ‘cheap’ includes a lot more than the money-rate — it touches such qualities as docility, timidity, ignorance. These add up to reliability. […] The primary incentive of those who want immigration is the […] realization that immigration is profitable”.

3.The progressive removal of discriminatory clauses (1947, 1952, 1962, 1967). By the late 1960’s, admission into Canada was done on a point system. These points are attributed on a non-discriminatory basis.

4.The strong anti-communist components of the policy. In the period of 1945 to 1963, anti-communism was a fundamental factor in Canadian immigration policy. At the height of the Cold War, security elements were an important feature of the policy. Anti-communist immigrants were advantaged in applying to come to Canada. Left-wing immigrants were deemed suspicious and were likely to be rejected by Canadian Immigration. It has been argued that it was easier for former fascists than their victims to enter Canada in this period. This explains why some Nazi War Criminals gained entry into Canada. We were more preoccupied with communism than Fascism.

5.The humanitarian components become important in Canadian immigration:
a. Family reunification; once in Canada, an immigrant can sponsor members of his/her family. Conditions may apply in the sponsoring program. Usually, the sponsor takes financial responsibility for an extended period of time for the immigrant.
b. Refugee policy; a policy was progressively developed. Among the blocks of admitted refugees were the following:

•Jews (1945-48)
•Hungarians (1956-1957) (38,000 refugees to Canada)
•Czechoslovakia (1968)
•Uganda (1973-1975)
•South-East Asia (1973 +)
•South Americans (1980’s, Chileans, Salvadorians)
•Various groups since the 1980’s.

Why did Canadian Immigration Policy Change After 1945

Changes in the immigration policy were done progressively. There was no sudden change immediately after 1945. Yet, unmistakably, the policy shifted. Progressively, the discriminatory clauses in the Canadian Immigration Bill were altered, then removed. Important dates to chart these changes are 1947, 1952, 1962, 1967 and 1976.

Reasons given for this change are primarily the following:
1.The economic needs of Canada changed. The country now needed highly skilled, educated, immigrants who would make an important contribution to the technological revolution taking place. Immigrants came to the cities and were seen contributing to the well-being of the country in important ways. Post-war prosperity was linked to the coming of this skilled workforce. Many of these immigrants were investing immigrants.
2.The Post-War period is one of unprecedented economic growth and increases in the standard of living. Jobs were plentiful and immigrants were not percieved as competing for scarce jobs.

Increases in Canadian family revenue over decades (inflation eliminated)

1951-1961 : 32.8%

1961-1971 : 46%

1971-1981 : 26.1%

1981-1989 : 7.1%

3.Greater education among Canadians. Prejudice often feeds on ignorance. New technology (radio, television, cinema) and foreign travel brought Canadians into contact with people from the rest of the world and made them curious, and more open, about other cultures.
4.The effect of World War II, the horror of the death camps, etc. made Canadians see what intolerance leads to. The Post-War period, especially the 1960’s, was a period of growth in the recognition of Human Rights (Canada adopts its first Bill of Rights in 1960).
5.Increasing organization of minority groups to defend their rights. Individual immigrants are not fighting prejudice alone anymore.
6.An important element of the Canadian post-war immigration policy, extending to the early 1960’s, was a strong anti-communist component. This sentiment was widespread at the height of the Cold War period. Anti-communists, and people fleeing the communist dictatorships, were given asylum in Canada. Such immigrants were popular as they justified the belief of Canadians as to the dangers and evils of Communism. In the immediate postwar period, it was sometimes easier for former fascists to enter Canada than for their victims to do so. What these fascists had in common was their strong anti-communist views. (See the review by Devin O. Pendas, “Unauthorized Entry: The Truth about Nazi War Criminals in Canada, 1946-1956” in Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Volume 17, Number 3 (Winter 2003): 505-508; the book reviewed by Pendas was Unauthorized Entry: The Truth about Nazi War Criminals in Canada, 1946-1956, by Howard Margolian, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2000, 327p.; another important study to consult is Reginald Whitaker, Double Standard: the Secret History of Canadian Immigration, Toronto, Lester & Orpen Dennys, 1987)

7.In the Post-War period, the increasing rise in the standard of living in Europe, especially in Western Europe, meant that European immigrants were less interested in immigrating to Canada. If one considers that the birth rate was rapidly declining in Canada, and that there were shortages of labour in several fields, then the country was forced to look for immigration in other parts of the world and, for that purpose, change its policies.

© 2006 Claude Bélanger, Marianopolis College

Definition of Immigration

Immigration meaning or descrpition: the movement of non-native people into a country in order to settle there (Source of this concept of Immigration: emp.ca/books/479-3)

Definition of Immigration

The Canada social science dictionary [1] provides the following meaning of Immigration: The movement of peoples into a country or territory (movement of people within countries is referred to as migration.) Immigration has played the central role in the development of Canada from the first permanent European settlements in the mid 1600’s to the 1990’s where 16% of Canadians were born outside Canada. The birth rate of Canada’s population – the number of children born to a woman in her fertile years – is about 1.6, much lower than the 2.1 that would be needed to maintain a stable population. The prospect of a declining and aging population has led to some calls for increased immigration to Canada . Economic recession, the demands on public services resulting from the concentrated patterns of immigrant settlement and concern about inter-ethnic tensions, have more recently led to controversy about levels of immigration. A special mention should be made of Quebec, where the population increased, until the 1960’s, mostly through a high birth rate. In history, Quebec had one of the highest birthrates known in any world society. Although there has been immigration of Francophones to Quebec, chiefly from old French colonial territories, the great majority of the Francophone population has descended from the approximately 60,000 people who lived there when the French empire over Quebec ended in 1759.

Immigration: Resources

Notes and References

  1. Drislane, R., & Parkinson, G. (2016). (Concept of) Immigration. Online dictionary of the social sciences. Open University of Canada

Meech Lake Accord

Leave a reply

Meech Lake Accord (1987) in Canada

Main Issues:

  • Really a general agreement containing 2 parts: An agreement between Canada and Québec to delegate total control of the reception and integration of any immigrants that settle in that province (This agreement was later finalized).
  • Expired after 3 years, on June 23, 1990. On that date, the House of Commons and eight of the ten provincial legislatures had ratified the accord. However, Aboriginal MLA Elijah Harper of the Manitoba legislature blocked a ratification vote in that province.
  • Newfoundland premier Clyde Wells, having reversed the previous Newfoundland government’s ratification saw this as an apparent defeat for the accord, and consequently refused to hold a ratification vote in his legislature.

The constitutional accord: Quebec had 5 demands that needed to be fulfilled before they could sign 1982 constitution, “with dignity and honour”:

  • A constitutional veto (meaning any one province could block any constitutional amendment).
  • The recognition that Québec is a ‘distinct society’.
  • The right to have Supreme Court Justices appointed from names on lists created by the province.
  • The limitation of the federal spending power, namely, the allowance for a province to withdraw from a national program to create its own program with federal funds.
  • Greater provincial control of immigration, by automatically constitutionalizing inter-governmental agreements relating to that.

Note: The New Brunswick Companion Resolution to the Meech Lake Accord was a last-ditch attempt to address the flaws in the Meech Lake accord (see below). Later, the Charlottetown Accord (1992), with the unofficial consensus report of August 28, 1992 and the draft legal texts, is virtually a rehash of the Meech Lake Accord.

The New Brunswick Companion Resolution to the Meech Lake Accord

Main Issues:

  • A last-ditch attempt to address the flaws in the Meech Lake accord: Extended to New Bruswick to some degree what was given to Quebec, with respect to the status of the English and French linguistic communities.
  • Added consideration from the territories of appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.
  • Amended the proposed section 25 to specifically allow the territories the same right of appointment of Senators as the provinces were to get.
  • Would have constitutionalized An Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick, chapter O-1.1 of the Acts of New Brunswick, 1981.
  • Obligated the Senate to produce an economic statement on the country every 5 years, and present this to any conferences convened under the present section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • A contradictory notwithstanding clause to allow for the creation of territitories without the unanimous consent of the provinces, as proposed.
  • Would have made constitutional the convocation of hearings on any proposed constitutional amendment by Parliament or the legislatures, as he case may be.
  • Added to the agenda of the proposed section 50 to include discussions on matter relating to aboriginal peoples.
  • Would have obligated the Prime Minister of Canada to invite aboriginal representatives to conferences on issues described immediately above.

1987 Constitutional Accord

June 3, 1987

WHEREAS first ministers, assembled in Ottawa, have arrived at a unanimous accord on constitutional amendments that would bring about the full and active participation of Quebec in Canada’s constitutional evolution, would recognize the principle of equality of all provinces, would provide new arrangements to foster greater harmony and cooperation between the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces and would require that annual constitutional conferences composed of first ministers be convened not later than December 31, 1988;

AND WHEREAS first ministers have also reached unanimous agreement on certain additional commitments in relation to some of those amendments;

NOW THEREFORE the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces commit themselves and the governments they represent to the following:

1. The Prime Minister of Canada will lay or cause to be laid before the Senate and House of Commons, and the first ministers of the provinces will lay or cause to be laid before the legislative assemblies, as soon as possible, a resolution, in the form appended hereto, to authorize a proclamation to be issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada to amend the Constitution of Canada.

2. The Government of Canada will, as soon as possible, conclude an agreement with the Government of Quebec that would

(a) incorporate the principles of the Cullen-Couture agreement on the selection abroad and in Canada of independent immigrants, visitors for medical treatment, students and temporary workers, and on the selection of refugees abroad and economic criteria for family reunification and assisted relatives,
(b) guarantee that Quebec will receive a number of immigrants, including refugees, within the annual total established by the federal government for all of Canada proportionate to its share of the population of Canada, with the right to exceed that figure by per cent for demographic reasons, and

(c) provide an undertaking by Canada to withdraw services (except citizenship services) for the reception and integration (including linguistic and cultural) of all foreign nationals wishing to settle in Quebec where services are to be provided by Quebec, with such withdrawal to be accompanied by reasonable compensation,

and the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec will take the necessary steps to give the agreement the force of law under the proposed amendment relating to such agreements.

3. Nothing in the Accord should be construed as preventing the negotiation of similar agreements with other provinces relating to immigration and the temporary admission of aliens.

4. Until the proposed amendment relating to the appointments to the Senate comes into force, any person summoned to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted by the Government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada.

Motion for a Resolution to Authorize an Amendment to the Constitution of Canada

WHEREAS the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force on April 17, 1982, following an agreement between Canada and the provinces except Quebec;

AND WHEREAS the Government of Quebec has established a set of five proposals for constitutional change and has stated that amendments to give effect to those proposals would enable Quebec to resume a full role in the constitutional councils of Canada;

AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto sets out the basis on which Quebec’s five constitutional proposals may be met;

AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto also recognizes the principles of equality of all the provinces, provides new arrangements to foster greater harmony and cooperation between the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces and requires that conferences be convened to consider important constitutional, economic and other issues;

AND WHEREAS certain portions of the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto relate to matters referred to in section 41 of the Constitution Action, 1982;

AND WHEREAS section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province;

NOW THEREFORE the (Senate) (House of Commons) (legislative assembly) resolves that an amendment to Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.

SCHEDULE: CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, 1987

Constitution Act, 1867

1. The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 1 thereof, the following section:

2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a) the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centered in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and English-speaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and
(b) the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.

(2) The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (1) (a) is affirmed

(3) The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (1)(b) is affirmed.

(4) Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures or governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language.

2. The said act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 24 thereof, the following section:

25. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the government of the province to which the vacancy relates may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada the names of persons who may be summoned to the senate.
(2) Until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the person summoned to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted under subsection (1) by the government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada.

3. The said act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 95 thereof, the following heading and sections:

Agreements on Immigration and Aliens

95A. The Government of Canada shall, at the request of the government of any province, negotiate with the government of that province for the purpose of concluding an agreement relating to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province that is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of that province.

95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C (1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.

(2) An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) shall have effect only so long as and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.

(3) The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government or a province, pursuant to any such agreement.

95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95B (1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is party to the agreement.

(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B (1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized

(a) by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is party to the agreement; or
(b) in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.

95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C (1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C (2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.

95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D of this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B(1).

4. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading:

General

5. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 101 thereof, the following heading:

Courts Established by the Parliament of Canada

6. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 101 thereof, the following heading and sections:

Supreme Court of Canada

101A. (1) The court existing under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the general court of appeal for Canada, and as an additional court for the better administration of the laws of Canada, and shall continue to be a superior court of record.

(2) The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada and eight other judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.

101B. (1) Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who after having admitted to the bar of any province or territory, has, for a total of at least ten years, been a judge of any courts in Canada or a member of the bar of any province or territory.

(2) At least three judge of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years, been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.

101C. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of the province and are qualified under section 101B for appointment to that Court.

(2) Where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada.

(3) Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101B(2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Government of Quebec.

(4) Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) otherwise than as required under subsection (3), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the government of a province other than Quebec.

101D. Sections 99 and 100 apply in respect of judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.

101E. (1) Sections 101A to 101D shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of Parliament to make laws under section 101 except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with those sections.

(2) For greater certainty, section 101A shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws relating to the reference of questions of law or fact, or any other matters, to the Supreme Court of Canada.

7. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 106 thereof, the following section:

106A. (1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared cost program that is established by the Government of Canada after the coming force of this section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives.
(2) Nothing in this section extends the legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces.

8. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections:

XII – Conferences on the Economy and other Matters

148. A Conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year to discuss the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate.

XIII – References

149. A reference to this Act shall be deemed include a reference to any amendments thereto.

Constitution Act, 1982

9. Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:

40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;

(c) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;

(d) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;

(e) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;

(f) subject to section 43, the use of the English or French language;

(g) the Supreme Court of Canada;

(h) the extension of existing provinces into the territories;

(i) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and

(j) an amendment to this part.

10. Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.
11. Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41, and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province.
12. Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing the issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution.
13. Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

Part VI

Constitutional Conferences

50. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year, commencing in 1988.

(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:

(a) Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of selecting Senators and representation in the Senate;
(b) roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries; and

(c) such other matters as are agreed upon.

14. Subsection 52(2) of the said Act is amended by striking out the word “and” at the end of paragraph (b) thereof, by adding the word “and” at the end of paragraph (c) thereof, and by adding thereto the following paragraph:

(d) any other amendment to the Constitution of Canada.
15. Section 61 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

61. A reference to the Constitution Act, 1982, or a reference to the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto.
General

16. Nothing in Section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25 or 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 .

Citation

17. This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, 1987.

Meech Lake Accord

Definition of Meech Lake Accord by Rand Dyck and Christopher Cochrane (in their book “Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches”) in the context of political science in Canada: The 1987 package of constitutional amendments intended to bring Quebec back into the constitutional fold.

Definition of Meech Lake Accord

The Canada social science dictionary [1] provides the following meaning of Meech Lake Accord: An agreement by the Prime Minister of Canada and the ten provincial premiers, signed June 3, 1987, to amend the Constitution of Canada to provide for: explicit recognition of Quebec as a ‘distinct society’; increased provincial power over immigration; limitation of federal government spending power; recognition of Quebec’s right to veto further Constitutional change; provincial participation over appointments of Supreme Court of Canada judges. The Accord required assent from Parliament and all ten provincial legislatures, but did not receive final ratification in either Newfoundland or Manitoba before the June 23, 1990 deadline. Principal components of the Accord were later included in the Charlottetown Agreement (August 28, 1992), a further attempt to amend the Constitution of Canada, which was defeated in a national referendum.

Meech Lake Accord: Resources

Notes and References

  1. Drislane, R., & Parkinson, G. (2016). (Concept of) Meech Lake Accord. Online dictionary of the social sciences. Open University of Canada

Resources

See Also

  • Politics
  • Political Science