This article challenges the conventional interpretation of the intellectual origins of Canadian federalism. The article argues that the debate over Confederation can be interpreted as a debate over the meaning of sovereignty. It argues centrally that certain of the most prominent supporters of Confederation were more powerfully attracted to the conception of classical federalism and co-ordinate sovereignty than is usually assumed, thus creating a striking parallel to United States federalism that is not typically recognized. It concludes by showing how this understanding of classical federalism was used with great success in opposing the post-Confederation centralism of John A. Macdonald.

No abstract

How “historical” is Canadian political science? This paper sets out to answer this question through an analysis of historically oriented articles that have appeared in this journal from its first volume, in 1968, to 2015. We suggest that historical research in this journal is at once enduring and uneven, a pattern that we then explore in more detail in a case study, spanning forty years, of historical articles that focus on the interconnected themes of the constitution, courts, and federalism. The unevenness of this pattern suggests that the intellectual and methodological foundation of “historical” Canadian political science may not be as firm as it appears. We therefore conclude with a description of some methodological and conceptual tools, originally fashioned within the historically oriented subfield of American political development in the United States, that Canadian political scientists might deploy to probe important and enduring questions of Canadian politics.

to watch President George W Bush deliver his much-anticipated ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. Unlike most Canadians, I watched the speech in the us itself-to be precise, from Harvard University. About midway through the speech, I began to surf for some alternative, but encountered the same face-serious, sombre and smirk-free-on channel after channel. Until, that is, I reached the niche public affairs channel, C-SPAN2. Here, to my surprise, I encountered taped coverage of Prime Minister Jean Chrdtien announcing and defending Canada's decision not to join "the coalition of the willing."Tucked away on C-SPAN2, the Canadian position on the war in Iraq was largely invisible in the us. So, too, was I. Almost no one I encountered knew anything about the Canadian position, and those who did, more often than not, preferred it to their President's bellicosity anyway. William Buckley once famously quipped that he would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston telephone directory

The rise of the provincial rights movement in the generation after Confederation forms an important chapter in Canadian constitutionalism. In their attempts to understand the provincial rights movement, however, historians and political scientists have paid insufficient attention to the precise constitutional doctrine that was developed to thwart the centralizing designs of Sir John A. Macdonald. This article shows that the sources of this provincialist constitutional doctrine can be found in the Confederation settlement itself. It further shows how the provincial rights movement subsequently was able to use this doctrine to discredit one of the key centralizing devices of the Macdonald constitution—the veto power of disallowance. And it concludes that the legacy of the provincial rights movement continues to inform the way Canadians think about federalism.