In political science, federalism is often treated as an “antithesis” to empire. While Canadian Politics has recently become more attentive to the importance of ongoing settler colonialism as conditioning Canadian political life writ large, this has yet to induce a paradigm shift in understanding how the institutional logics of the state were established by, and in order to advance, colonial and imperial ends. This article contributes to this broader understanding by exploring how, in Canada, the federal arrangement congeals a constitutionalized whiteness that facilitates both the internal coherence of a settler class and its subsequent continental expansion. Attentive to the importance of this constitutional development within a world-spanning imperial context, this article also suggests that the simultaneous innovation of Dominion status contoured the early twentieth-century's global colour line, as self-determination was increasingly devolved to other white settler polities. The contradictory realities of these processes are also noted.

Questions concerning border closures during pandemics often focus on international borders or rights-based considerations. Closures of internal borders in federal countries, such as Canada, raise independent concerns regarding who can close internal borders when. Those questions are not exhausted by rights-based considerations and cannot be resolved using brute empirical measures. They instead implicate the nature and ends of federalism. This text uses the case of internal border restrictions in Canada during COVID-19 to explore whether the kinds of closures that took place there can be justified on federalism grounds. It argues that the case for provinces being able to unilaterally enact interprovincial border closures in federal countries, as observed in Canada during COVID-19, do not withstand scrutiny. It attends to possible justifications for federalism to demonstrate that the best arguments for federalism do not support provincial control over borders that justify provinces possessing, let alone exercising, unilateral authority to close interprovincial borders to persons residing in other provinces.

Cet article porte sur les effets et les contraintes posés par la pandémie de COVID-19 sur les mécanismes de la gouvernance dans le système fédéral canadien. Pour ce faire, nous empruntons un cadre analytique bien spécifique, que nous faisons découler expressément des réflexions de la Cour suprême du Canada dans son Renvoi relatif à la sécession du Québec. Nous nous intéressons ainsi aux quatre principes sous-jacents à la Constitution canadienne identifiés par la Cour – soit le fédéralisme, la démocratie, le constitutionnalisme et la primauté du droit, de même que la protection des minorités – et à leur respect (ou non-respect) en temps de crise. Nous posons la question suivante : dans quelle mesure l’esprit de ces quatre principes constitutionnels fondamentaux a-t-il été respecté par les acteurs clés du système de gouvernance au Canada alors qu’ils étaient confrontés à la pandémie de COVID-19?

Les pays ayant une structure politique fédérale sont souvent confrontés aux revendications de leurs États membres pour obtenir plus d'autonomie politique. Pour répondre à ces revendications, les théoriciens du fédéralisme multinational ont proposé de reconnaître un droit à l'autodétermination interne qu'ils ont pris soin d'encadrer de diverses manières. Bien qu'intéressante, cette proposition pourrait toutefois s'avérer insuffisante pour répondre aux inégalités entre les peuples au sein d'une même fédération. C'est la thèse que nous défendrons dans le présent article. Nous montrerons que le concept d'autodétermination interne défendu par Kymlicka reste indéterminé et ouvre la porte à des interprétations plus exigeantes.

This presidential address on Canada and the study of territorial politics makes four main arguments. The first is that territory is a central component of politics, especially of Canadian politics, and that it should remain a focal point of specialists of Canadian and comparative politics. The second is that territory matters in contemporary politics because it serves as grounding for political communities, their claims, and their politics. The third is that not “identifying” parts of Canadian politics as “territorial politics” risks overlooking the importance of territory in the theorizing of federalism, nationalism and regionalism. The fourth is that, through the case of Canada, political scientists have made significant contributions to the study of comparative territorial politics.

The text of the US Constitution appears to require that individual states, to the extent that they are ever allowed to conclude agreements with foreign governments, must obtain congressional approval. In practice, however, states conclude many agreements with foreign governments, including with Canada and its provinces, and they almost never seek congressional approval. This practice is an illustration of both the importance of federalism in US foreign relations and the significant role played by historical practice in informing US constitutional interpretation. The phenomenon of state international agreements assumed new prominence in 2019 when the Trump administration sued to challenge a climate change agreement that the state of California had made with Québec. Despite this challenge, for the most part, neither Congress nor the executive branch has resisted the growth in state international agreements. This acquiescence could change as countries like China target US states in an effort to work around strained relations with the US national government and as states become more assertive in resisting the national government’s foreign policies. In any event, the practice of state international agreements unapproved by Congress rests in part on a distinction between binding and non-binding agreements that deserves greater scrutiny under both domestic and international law.

Premier of Alberta Danielle Smith's comments comparing the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act to the Indian Act have sparked widespread outrage and condemnation. Premier Smith would later clarify that these remarks were intended to demonstrate that Alberta and First Nations have a “common problem” with Ottawa. In this brief article, we argue that these comments, as well as the act itself, can be analyzed using Jerald Sabin's contested colonialism framework. We then provide a brief critical discussion of what our analysis means for Canadian politics by addressing the possible intentions and harms of the comments.

Dans cet article, je présente le potentiel d'utiliser une approche féministe radicale de l’empowerment comme grille d'analyse dans les études fédérales. Pour ce faire, je développe un cadre analytique qui s'inscrit dans la quatrième vague d’études sur le genre et le fédéralisme qui s'intéresse aux interactions entre oppressions imbriquées et dispositifs fédéraux (institutions, pratiques, discours). J’étudie les processus d’empowerment des personnes agricultrices s’étant mobilisées à la fin de l'année 2020 en Inde contre l'entrée en vigueur de nouvelles lois agricoles. Par ce cas, j'illustre d'abord comment le fédéralisme participe à la fragmentation de groupes marginalisés, tout en soulevant la nécessité d’élaborer des dispositifs fédéraux à partir des réalités, écosystèmes et environnements locaux. Puis, je montre comment une conception féministe radicale de l’empowerment peut modifier les perspectives d'analyse en études fédérales et rendre visibles des structures qui perpétuent les oppressions imbriquées au sein d'une fédération.

In 1975, the Bourassa government received legal advice that the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement exceeded provincial jurisdiction. Legal counsel advised the constitutionality of the Agreement be secured through formal constitutional amendment. No such amendment was sought. Based on authorized access to Premier Bourassa’s archived dossier on the Agreement’s negotiation, this article sets out the following: 1) why the provincial government sought to encroach on federal jurisdiction; 2) the strategic means employed to insulate the Agreement from s. 91(24) litigation; and 3) provincial negotiators’ views on how judges would approach the Agreement going forward. This article confirms theoretical expectations about when governments might coordinate to transgress federalism’s division of powers: a high probability that courts would find a transgression occurred, and a high political cost should governments not coordinate on a transgression strategy.

La Commission de vérité et réconciliation du Canada (CVRC) réitérait en 2015 la volonté des Peuples Autochtones de renouveler leur relation avec l’État canadien. Cet article présente une réflexion théorique sur les possibilités offertes par le fédéralisme afin de renouveler cette relation entre les Autochtones et l’État. L'article confronte les arguments des tenants du fédéralisme comme cadre des relations entre les Autochtones et l’État et ceux des critiques de l’établissement d'un rapport fédéral de nation à nation entre les Peuples Autochtones et le Canada. L'article présente donc une proposition pour le renouvellement de la relation entre les Autochtones et l’État à travers un modèle de fédéralisme basé autour de régions autochtones autonomes.

This article proposes a new model for the engagement of sub-state units with the international legal order. “Trialogical subsidiarity” acknowledges that some areas are best regulated locally, but it also argues that international law has an increasing say in areas traditionally reserved for local law. The implementation of an international cultural heritage treaty by constituent units (CUs) in federal states, despite objections of the federal authorities, is a case study for the possibilities and implications of the use of international law by CUs without the filtering of the central state. This use enhances the legitimacy of international law and can lead to better outcomes for local populations, moving international law closer to its promise of being a law of peoples rather than of states.

This article examines the effect of two recent constitutional decisions that have altered the course of assisted-reproduction policy in Canada: Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act (2010) and Pratten v British Columbia (2011). Together, the cases link a socially liberal conception of morality in federalism cases with an interventionist view of the state in Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms cases. This could result in a trend toward judicially mandated provincial, as opposed to federal, government action. These cases also provide further evidence of the judicialization of politics in Canada, whereby controversial moral and public-policy issues are increasingly determined in the courtroom.