Research publications

On 16 October 2013, in the Speech from the Throne beginning the 2nd Session of the 41st Parliament, the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, described Canada as a “federation in which [our] two national languages position us uniquely in the world.” The Prime Minister of Canada also used the term “national languages” in his message in the Roadmap for Canada’s Official Languages 2013–2018, and it has been used by the government on other occasions. Given that Canadian usage generally favours the term “official languages” over “national languages,” these recent instances have raised questions. For example, at a meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages on 27 November 2013, a government member asked the Commissioner of Official Languages whether using the term “national languages” would symbolize a stronger recognition of English and French. The Commissioner expressed some concern regarding its use: “If we agree that certain languages are official and that others are national, which is to say limited to a certain territory, I think there may be a risk of creating hierarchy. That being said, I am just beginning to reflect upon this issue, which is why I hesitate to provide you with a clear answer.” The issue arose again in March 2014, when the Honourable Shelly Glover, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, used the term during her appearances before the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages. This document examines the issue in terms of Canada’s history and linguistic landscape, beginning with a brief explanation of the difference between a “national language” and an “official language.” It then traces the decision to use the term “official languages” to describe English and French as well as the recommendation to give them a legal foundation, two factors leading to the adoption of the Official Languages Act in 1969.

The federal government has authority over matters related to health and health care derived mainly from its criminal law power for issues related to public health and safety, and from its spending power through which it makes transfers to the provinces and territories, including health transfers. The federal government contributes to the provinces' and territories' public health spending primarily through the Canada Health Transfer (CHT). It can also fund targeted health care directly. It negotiates with each province the amounts to be transferred to them and the use of the funds. In 2017, it granted funding over 10 years to the provinces for home care and mental health initiatives. Approximately 70% of health spending in Canada comes from public funding, and this percentage has remained stable in the last 20 years. The balance of funding comes from private sources, mainly out-of-pocket spending and private insurance. The proportion contributed to public funding by the Canada Health Transfer has risen from 21% in 2012 to 23.5% in 2019. In late 2020, the federal and provincial governments signed the Safe Restart Agreement which provides funding to the provinces to help them deal with future waves of COVID-19 and restart their economies.

Sanctions are measures implemented by governments to restrict or prohibit certain types of interactions with a foreign state, individual or entity. Governments impose sanctions in pursuit of foreign policy objectives, most often in response to breaches of international peace and security, but also in cases of gross violations of human rights and significant acts of corruption. Over the last 30 years, the use of sanctions by the United Nations (UN), Canada and allies such as the United States (U.S.) and the European Union (EU) has increased significantly. Canada imposes UN-mandated sanctions through the United Nations Act, and autonomous sanctions through the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law). Regulations made under these Acts create a series of restrictions, prohibitions and obligations applicable to firms and people in Canada and to Canadians overseas in relation to foreign states, individuals and entities. The Acts include criminal penalties for contravening the regulations and provisions for parliamentary reporting and review. Canada currently has 20 sanctions regimes targeting specific countries and two transnational regimes related to counter-terrorism, as well as human rights and corruption sanctions targeting 70 individuals from five countries. Canada often imposes sanctions in coordination with its allies, most notably the U.S. and the EU. That said, Canadian sanctions practice differs from that of the U.S. in a number of important respects. Unlike Canada, the U.S. imposes so-called “secondary sanctions,” which seek to impose restrictions on firms in third-party countries. The U.S. also regularly imposes large fines in response to the violation of sanctions, totalling more than US$1 billion in 2019.

Under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal government has exclusive legislative authority for "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians." This responsibility, however, often overlaps with that of the provinces, whose authority extends to areas such as child welfare, education and policing. While "Indians" means all Indigenous peoples for the purpose of section 91(24), the federal government has historically tried to limit its responsibilities to the status First Nations population living on reserves, notably through the Indian Act, leaving other Indigenous peoples in a "jurisdictional wasteland." These nuances have influenced the relationships First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples have with the provincial and federal governments. The emphasis placed on federal and provincial responsibility has also historically overshadowed Indigenous peoples' inherent rights, including their right to govern themselves. Developments over the past decades in the areas of child and family services, education and policing illustrate how jurisdictional complexities may affect First Nations peoples and their communities, and how gaps have been filled by First Nations themselves as they assert their right to self-government and self-determination. To date, however, these developments have been more limited in scope and have mostly resulted from the federal government's intention to incrementally devolve programming and service delivery.