The Great Depression and Canada's Major Originalist Decade

Authors

• Preston Jordan Lim, Villanova University Charles Widger School of LawFollow

Author ORCID Identifier

0000-0001-6040-6123

Keywords

Canadian constitutional history, Canadian constitutional theory, Originalism, F.R. Scott, W.P.M. Kennedy, Vincent MacDonald, Great Depression, Federalism, British North America Act

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Few periods of Canadian history have been as momentous or terrible as the Great Depression. The Dominion and provincial governments’ inability to combat financial and environmental catastrophe led many Canadians to openly question the appropriateness of their constitutional framework. As legal historians have since documented, many leading jurists of the time believed that a strong central government could, through the institution of national programs, contain the Great Depression; in the eyes of these 1930s jurists, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—then Canada’s apex court—had sapped the federal government of its powers by misinterpreting the British North America Act, 1867.

Although scholars have correctly identified the Great Depression as a period of intellectual ferment and even revolution, none has fully accounted for the prevalence of originalist thought in the legal debates of the time. In response to the Great Depression, the major legal thinkers and reformers of the 1930s deployed originalist arguments. They criticized the Privy Council for having departed from the original intentions of the Fathers of Confederation and the original meaning of the Constitution. While the leading jurists of the period all tended to employ originalist reasoning, they often disagreed on interpretive outcomes. Thus, while many jurists used originalist reasoning to argue in favour of a strong central government, some argued that the original intentions of the Framers and the original public meaning of constitutional provisions favoured a federalist interpretation of the British North America Act. I conclude that the dominance of originalism during the legal debates of the 1930s bears several lessons for modern constitutional theorists. The fact, for example, that jurists of all ideological backgrounds employed originalist logic demonstrates that the characterization of originalism as inherently conservative makes little sense in the Canadian context.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Citation Information

Lim, Preston Jordan. "The Great Depression and Canada's Major Originalist Decade." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 62.2 (2026) : 569-618.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3955
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol62/iss2/6

References

1. Assistant Professor, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law. Special thanks to Justice Grant Huscroft of the Court of Appeal for Ontario and to the Honourable Russell Brown, formerly of the Supreme Court of Canada, for reading multiple drafts of and publicly commentating on this article. This article has benefitted considerably from the edits and comments of participants at the Osgoode Society Legal History Workshop, the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law conference on Evolving Approaches to Constitutional Interpretation, and the University of San Diego School of Law Hugh and Hazel Darling Works-in-Progress Conference. Thank you to Eric Adams, Jack Balkin, Stephanie Barclay, Jud Campbell, Philip Girard, Saambavi Mano, Jim Phillips, Richard Primus, Richard Risk, Dan Rohde, Stephen Sachs, Jed Shugerman, Nicole Spadotto, Maimon Schwarzschild, Larry Solum, David Upham, and Ryan Williams, among others, for their thoughtful comments.

2. The Great Depression: 1929-1939 (McClelland & Stewart, 1990) at 19.

3. Ibid at 511.

4. (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, s 50, reprinted in RSC 1985, Appendix II, No 5 [BNA Act].

5. Virginia Torrie, “Federalism and Farm Debt during the Great Depression: Political Impetuses for The Farmers’ Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934” (2019) 82 Sask L Rev 203 at 251.

6. “Canada’s ‘Newer Constitutional Law’ and the Idea of Constitutional Rights” (2006) 51 McGill LJ 435, DOI: .

7. Ibid at 451-52.

8. R Blake Brown, “The Canadian Legal Realists and Administrative Law Scholarship, 1930-1941” (2000) 9 Dal J Leg Stud 36 at 69. See also R Blake Brown, “Realism, Federalism, and Statutory Interpretation during the 1930s: The Significance of Home Oil Distributors v. A.G. (B.C.)” (2001) 59 UT Fac L Rev 1 [Brown, “Realism, Federalism, and Statutory Interpretation”]; R Blake Brown, “The Supreme Court of Canada and Judicial Legitimacy: The Rise and Fall of Chief Justice Lyman Poore Duff” (2002) 47 McGill LJ 559 [Brown, “The Supreme Court of Canada and Judicial Legitimacy”]; Richard Risk, “A.H.F. Lefroy: Common Law Thought in Late-Nineteenth-Century Canada—On Burying One’s Grandfather” (1991) 41 UTLJ 307, DOI: [Risk, “A.H.F. Lefroy”]; Richard Risk, “Here Be Cold and Tygers: A Map of Statutory Interpretation in Canada in the 1920s and 1930s” (2000) 63 Sask L Rev 195 [Risk, “Here Be Cold and Tygers”].

9. See Brown, “Realism, Federalism, and Statutory Interpretation,” supra note 8 at 8, 11, 18.

10. Ibid at 22.

11. See e.g. Colin Feasby, “The Evolving Approach to Charter Interpretation” (2022) 60 Alta L Rev 35, DOI: ; Vanessa MacDonnell, “The Enduring Wisdom of the Purposive Approach to Charter Interpretation” in Howard Kislowicz, Kerri A Froc & Richard Moon, eds, Canada’s Surprising Constitution: Unexpected Interpretations of the Constitution Act, 1982 (University of British Columbia Press, 2024) at 369, DOI: ; Quebec (Attorney General) v 9147-0732 Québec Inc, 2020 SCC 32; Toronto (City) v Ontario (Attorney General), 2021 SCC 34.

12. See e.g. Adrian Vermeule, Common Good Constitutionalism: Recovering the Classical Legal Tradition (Polity Press, 2022); Peter D Lauwers, “A Voice from the Attic: A Canadian Take on Common Good Constitutionalism” in Maxime St-Hilaire, Ryan Alford & Kristopher Kinsinger, eds, Unwritten Constitutionalism (LexisNexis Canada, 2023) at 197.

13. “Here Be Cold and Tygers,” supra note 8 at 195.

14. See generally Stephen E Sachs, “Originalism as a Theory of Legal Change” (2015) 38 Harv JL & Pub Pol’y 817.

15. See “The Judicial Committee and its Critics” (1971) 4 Can J Pol Sci 301 at 302, DOI: .

16. See “Origin Myth: The Persons Case, the Living Tree, and the New Originalism” in Grant Huscroft & Bradley W Miller, eds, The Challenge of Originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation (Cambridge University Press, 2011) 120 at 122, DOI: . But see Peter C Oliver, “Enduring Metaphors: The Persons Case and the Living Tree” (2022) 48 Queen’s LJ 1 at 35, DOI: .

17. Bank of Toronto v Lambe (Quebec), [1887] 12 AC 575 at 579.

18. Vincent C MacDonald, “Constitutional Interpretation and Extrinsic Evidence” (1939) 17 Can Bar Rev 77 at 79-80.

19. John Borrows, “(Ab)Originalism and Canada’s Constitution” (2012) 58 SCLR 351 at 359-60, DOI: .

20. See e.g. ibid; Feasby, supra note 11; MacDonnell, supra note 11; Leonid Sirota, “Purposivism, Textualism, and Originalism in Recent Cases on Charter Interpretation” (2021) 47 Queen’s LJ 78; Leonid Sirota & Benjamin Oliphant, “Originalist Reasoning in Canadian Constitutional Jurisprudence” (2017) 50 UBC L Rev 505, DOI: [Sirota & Oliphant, “Originalist Reasoning”].

21. See e.g. Canadian Constitution Foundation, “Proceedings of the Inter-Provincial Conference Held at the City of Quebec (20-28 October 1887)” (20 October 1887), online: [https://perma.cc/N6J8-5GU7]. See also Jeffrey Goldsworthy & Grant Huscroft, “Originalism in Australia and Canada: Why the Divergence?” in Richard Albert & David R Cameron, eds, Canada in the World: Comparative Perspectives on the Canadian Constitution (Cambridge University Press, 2017) 183 at 184, DOI: .

22. See Benjamin Oliphant & Leonid Sirota, “Has the Supreme Court of Canada Rejected ‘Originalism’?” (2016) 42 Queen’s LJ 107 at 108, DOI: .

23. See e.g. Edwin Borchard, “The Supreme Court and Private Rights” (1938) 47 Yale LJ 1051 at 1063. See also Lawrence B Solum, “What is Originalism? The Evolution of Contemporary Originalist Theory” in Grant Huscroft & Bradley W Miller, eds, The Challenge of Originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation (Cambridge University Press, 2011) at 12, DOI: [Solum, “What is Originalism”].

24. See Gareth Morley, “Dead Hands, Living Trees, Historic Compromises: The Senate Reform and Supreme Court Act References Bring the Originalist Debate to Canada” (2016) 53 Osgoode Hall LJ 745 at 750-52, DOI: .

25. Lawrence B Solum, “Originalism Versus Living Constitutionalism: The Conceptual Structure of the Great Debate” (2019) 113 Nw UL Rev 1243 at 1245-46, DOI: [Solum, “Originalism Versus Living Constitutionalism”].

26. See “Legal Theory Lexicon 019: Originalism” (last modified 23 May 2023), online (blog): Legal Theory Lexicon  [perma.cc/7R27-4FKT].

27. “Nine Perspectives on Living Originalism” (2012) U Illinois L Rev 815 at 816-17, DOI: [Balkin, “Nine Perspectives on Living Originalism”].

28. John O McGinnis & Michael B Rappaport, “Unifying Original Intent and Original Public Meaning” (2019) 113 Nw UL Rev 1371 at 1373 [McGinnis & Rappaport, “Unifying Original Intent and Original Public Meaning”].

29. Scott A Boykin, “Original-Intent Originalism: A Reformulation and Defense” (2021) 60 Washburn LJ 245 at 265.

30. See “The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding” (1980) 60 BUL Rev 204.

31. Ibid.

32. See e.g. Larry Alexander & Saikrishna Prakash, “‘Is that English You’re Speaking?’ Why Intention Free Interpretation is an Impossibility” (2004) 41 San Diego L Rev 967.

33. McGinnis & Rappaport, “Unifying Original Intent and Original Public Meaning,” supra note 28 at 1373.

34. “Review: The Text, the Whole Text, and Nothing but the Text, So Help Me God: Un-Writing Amar’s Unwritten Constitution” (2014) 81 U Chicago L Rev 1385 at 1440.

35. See Hugo Choquette, “Translating the Constitution Act, 1867: A Critique” (2011) 36 Queen’s LJ 503 at 516.

36. John O McGinnis, “Original Methods Originalism is Public Meaning Originalism” (2017), online: Law & Liberty  [perma.cc/4F6R-SD7V].

37. Ibid.

38. See also Morley, supra note 24 at 750-52.

39. Ibid at 753, 787.

40. “Nine Perspectives on Living Originalism,” supra note 27 at 816.

41. Ibid.

42. Supra note 4, s 50.

43. Balkin, “Nine Perspectives on Living Originalism,” supra note 27 at 817.

44. Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

45. Ibid at 818.

46. Lawrence B Solum, “Legal Theory Lexicon 077: Living Constitutionalism” (last modified 12 May 2024), online (blog): Legal Theory Lexicon  [perma.cc/Y6M9-YKE7].

47. John O McGinnis & Michael B Rappaport, “An Originalist Future” (2014) 15 Federalist Society Rev 34 at 38.

48. See e.g. David A Strauss, “The Living Constitution” (2010), online: [perma.cc/6MDH-SZWL].

49. But see Lael K Weis, “Originalism and Constitutional Amendment” (2022) 25 Chapman L Rev 349.

50. “Protecting the Originalist Constitution” (2018) 42 Harv JL & Pub Pol’y 81 at 85.

51. See WR Lederman, “The Process of Constitutional Amendment for Canada” (1966) 12 McGill LJ 371 at 376.

52. BNA Act, supra note 4, Preamble at para 1.

53. See Thomas Colby, “The Sacrifice of the New Originalism” (2011) 99 Geo LJ 713 at 772-73; Jamal Greene, “The Age of Scalia” (2016) 130 Harv L Rev 144 at 155, DOI: .

54. See e.g. GP Browne, The Judicial Committee and the British North America Act: An Analysis of the Interpretative Scheme for the Distribution of Legislative Powers (University of Toronto Press, 1967); John T Saywell, The Lawmakers: Judicial Power and the Shaping of Canadian Federalism (University of Toronto Press, 2002), DOI: .

55. 1925 CanLII 331 (UK JCPC) [Snider].

56. See David Schneiderman, “Harold Laski, Viscount Haldane, and the Law of the Canadian Constitution in the Early Twentieth Century” (1998) 48 UTLJ 521 at 522, DOI: .

57. Snider, supra note 55 at 8.

58. Ibid at 15.

59. See “The Residue of Power in Canada” (1926) 4 Can Bar Rev 432 [Smith, “The Residue of Power in Canada”]; “Interpretation in English and Continental Law” (1927) 9 J Comp Legislation & Intl L 153.

60. “The Residue of Power in Canada,” supra note 59 at 434.

61. Ibid at 435.

62. Ibid at 436-37.

63. Ibid at 439.

64. See Canadian Constitution Foundation, “Home” (last modified 12 November 2025), online: <primarydocuments.ca> [perma.cc/52MN-J46R].

65. Risk, “Here Be Cold and Tygers,” supra note 8 at 198.

66. “Our Changing Constitution” in Frank R Scott, ed, Essays on the Constitution: Aspects of Canadian Law and Politics (University of Toronto Press, 1977) 390 at 390-91, DOI: .

67. See Canada (Attorney-General) v Ontario (Attorney-General), 1931 CanLII 466 (UK JCPC) [Aeronautics Reference]. See also Edwards v Canada (Attorney General), 1929 CanLII 438 (UK JCPC).

68. See Aeronautics Reference, supra note 67 at 58-59.

69. BNA Act, supra note 4, s 132.

70. See Aeronautics Reference, supra note 67 at 70.

71. See Re Regulation & Control of Radio Communication in Canada, [1932] 2 DLR 81 [Radio Reference].

72. Ibid at 83 [emphasis in original].

73. 1935 CanLII 308 at 413-14 (UK JCPC).

74. See e.g. WPM Kennedy, “Our Canadian Letter” (1932) South African L Times 57 [Kennedy, “Our Canadian Letter”]; WPM Kennedy, “Law and Custom in the Canadian Constitution” in WPM Kennedy, ed, Essays in Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press, 1934) 83 at 92 [Kennedy, “Law and Custom in the Canadian Constitution”]; Frank R Scott, “The Development of Canadian Federalism” in Frank R Scott, ed, supra note 66 at 35 [Scott, “The Development of Canadian Federalism”].

75. Special Committee on British North America Act, Proceedings and Evidence and Report, 17-6, vol 1 (1935) at iv.

76. See Jamie Cameron, “Legality, Legitimacy and Constitutional Amendment in Canada” in Richard Albert & David R Cameron, eds, Canada in the World: Comparative Perspectives on the Canadian Constitution (Cambridge University Press, 2017) 98 at 110, DOI: .

77. Potter A Oyler, WPM Kennedy & Vincent C MacDonald, “British Coal Corporation and Others v. The King: Three Comments” (1935) 13 Can Bar Rev 615 at 619.

78. Ibid.

79. Special Committee on British North America Act, supra note 75 at 11.

80. “Judicial Interpretation of the Canadian Constitution” (1936) 1 UTLJ 260 at 276, DOI: [MacDonald, “Judicial Interpretation of the Canadian Constitution”].

81. WH McConnell, “The Judicial Review of Prime Minister Bennett’s New Deal” (1968) 6 Osgoode Hall LJ 39 at 75, DOI: .

82. Ibid at 44-45, 74-75.

83. “The Privy Council and Mr. Bennett’s ‘New Deal’ Legislation” in Frank R Scott, ed, supra note 66, 90 at 99 [Scott, “The Privy Council and Mr. Bennett’s ‘New Deal’ Legislation”].

84. “Canada and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council” (1941) 4 UTLJ 33 at 34, DOI: .

85. See Report Pursuant to Resolution of the Senate to the Honourable Speaker by the Parliamentary Counsel relating to the Enactment of the British North America Act, 1867, any lack of consonance between its terms and judicial construction of them and cognate matters (King’s Printer, 1939) [Report to Senate]. See also Paul Romney, Getting it Wrong: How Canadians Forgot Their Past and Imperilled Confederation (University of Toronto Press, 1999) at 170, DOI: .

86. See Report to Senate, supra note 85 at 7.

87. V Evan Gray, “The O’Connor Report on the British North America Act, 1867” (1939) 17 Can Bar Rev 309 at 312.

88. See Romney, supra note 85 at 170.

89. Canada, Report of the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations. Book I: Canada: 1867-1939 (King’s Printer, 1940) at 13 [Canada, Book I].

90. Ibid at 10.

91. See Canada, Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, Book II: Recommendations (King’s Printer, 1940) at 81-86 [Canada, Book II].

92. Ibid at 9.

93. Ibid.

94. Ibid. See also Report to Senate, supra note 85 at 12; Michael Kirby, “Constitutional Interpretation and Original Intent: A Form of Ancestor Worship?” (2000) 24 Melbourne UL Rev 1.

95. See British North America Act, 1940, 3-4 Geo VI, c 36.

96. See Robert Wardhaugh & Barry Ferguson, The Rowell-Sirois Commission and the Remaking of Canadian Federalism (University of British Columbia Press, 2021) at 297-98, DOI: .

97. See e.g. Browne, supra note 54; Saywell, supra note 54.

98. Browne, “Realism, Federalism and Statutory Interpretation,” supra note 8 at 8.

99. See also “The Supreme Court of Canada and Judicial Legitimacy,” supra note 8 at 582.

100. “Here Be Cold and Tygers,” supra note 8 at 210.

101. Cairns, supra note 15 at 302.

102. Ibid at 302-304.

103. Ibid at 302.

104. See Preston Jordan Lim, “The Originalism of F.R. Scott” (2023) 111 SCLR 391 at 402.

105. “Political Nationalism and Confederation” in Frank R Scott, ed, supra note 66, 3 at 17 [Scott, “Political Nationalism and Confederation”].

106. “Section 94 of the British North America Act” in Frank R Scott, ed, supra note 66, 112 at 130 [Scott, “Section 94”].

107. Report to Senate, supra note 85 at 25.

108. Ibid at 59.

109. Ibid at 11. Compare Lim, supra note 104 at 399.

110. See Report to Senate, supra note 85 at 25.

111. Kennedy, “Law and Custom in the Canadian Constitution,” supra note 74 at 84.

112. Kennedy, “Our Canadian Letter,” supra note 74 at 57.

113. See Martin Friedland, “The Enigmatic W.P.M. Kennedy” in WPM Kennedy, ed, The Constitution of Canada: An Introduction to its Development and Law (Oxford University Press, 1922; reprint 2014) at iii.

114. “The Many Minds of W.P.M. Kennedy” (1998) 48 UTLJ 353 at 385, DOI: .

115. WPM Kennedy, “The Judicial Interpretation of the Canadian Constitution,” Book Review of The Canadian Constitution as interpreted by the Judicial Committee, 1916-1929 by Edward Robert Cameron (1930) 8 Can Bar Rev 703 at 708.

116. See Roger Brossard & HF Angus, “The Working of Confederation” (1937) 3 Can J Econs & Political Science 335 at 335, DOI: .

117. See Romney, supra note 85 at 285.

118. Brossard & Angus, supra note 116 at 338.

119. Ibid at 341.

120. Ibid at 342.

121. “The Genesis of Provincial Rights” (1933) 14 Can Historical Rev 9 at 14.

122. See Norman McLeod Rogers, “The Political Principles of Federalism” (1935) 1 Can J Econs & Political Science 337 at 345, DOI: [Rogers, “The Political Principles of Federalism”].

123. Ibid.

124. Supra note 87.

125. Ibid at 316.

126. Ibid at 315.

127. Ibid at 316, 318.

128. Ibid at 318.

129. For a discussion of formalist methods of the late nineteenth century, see Risk, “A.H.F. Lefroy,” supra note 8.

130. Canada, Book I, supra note 89 at 55.

131. Ibid at 56.

132. Ibid at 36.

133. Oyler, Kennedy & MacDonald, supra note 77 at 632.

134. Ibid.

135. See supra note 80 at 263.

136. Ibid at 268.

137. BNA Act, supra note 4, s 92(13).

138. See “Nos problèmes constitutionnels” (1938) 16 R du D 577.

139. Ibid at 592.

140. Quebec Act (UK), 14 Geo III, c 83, reprinted in RSC 1985, Appendix II, No 2.

141. See supra note 138 at 583.

142. Ibid at 590.

143. Ibid at 585-86.

144. Ibid at 590.

145. Ibid at 590-91.

146. Ibid at 582.

147. Ibid at 591.

148. See Report to Senate, supra note 85 at 11.

149. Ibid at 80.

150. Ibid at 53.

151. Ibid at 58.

152. Ibid at 118.

153. Ibid at 115.

154. Ibid at 116.

155. BNA Act, supra note 4, s 132.

156. “Canada’s Power to Perform Treaty Obligations: Part I” (1933) 11 Can Bar Rev 581 at 598 [MacDonald, “Treaty Obligations: Part I”].

157. Ibid.

158. Ibid at 599. See also Vincent C MacDonald, “Canada’s Power to Perform Treaty Obligations: Part II” (1933) 11 Can Bar Rev 664 at 674 [MacDonald, “Treaty Obligations: Part II”].

159. MacDonald, “Treaty Obligations: Part I,” supra note 156 at 599.

160. Ibid.

161. Ibid at 598; MacDonald, “Treaty Obligations: Part II,” supra note 158 at 672.

162. “Treaty Obligations: Part I,” supra note 156 at 598; “Treaty Obligations: Part II,” supra note 158 at 673.

163. See “Treaty Obligations: Part II,” supra note 158 at 672.

164. See Report to Senate, supra note 85 at 58.

165. Supra note 87 at 330.

166. Ibid.

167. See Saywell, supra note 54. See also Eugénie Brouillet, La négation de la nation (Septentrion, 2005).

168. See Canada, Book I, supra note 89 at 32-35.

169. Ibid at 35.

170. Ibid at 36.

171. Canada, Book II, supra note 91 at 249.

172. Ibid at 250.

173. Ibid at 252.

174. See Report to Senate, supra note 85 at 180.

175. Jack M Balkin, “Framework Originalism and the Living Constitution” (2009) 103 Nw UL Rev 549 at 550.

176. Report to Senate, supra note 85 at 12.

177. Ibid at 81.

178. Special Committee on the British North America Act, supra note 75 at 2.

179. Ibid.

180. See Lim, supra note 104 at 392.

181. “Constitutional Adaptations to Changing Functions of Government” in Frank R Scott, ed, supra note 66, 142 at 143 [Scott, “Constitutional Adaptations to Changing Functions of Government”].

182. Canada, Book II, supra note 91 at 9, 13.

183. Ibid at 9.

184. Ibid.

185. Ibid at 273.

186. Ibid at 274.

187. Ibid at 273.

188. See e.g. Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 US 310, 390 (2010).

189. Some Aspects of the Theories and Workings of Constitutional Law: The Fred Morgan Kirby Lectures Delivered at Lafayette College, 1931 (The Macmillan Company, 1932) at 94.

190. “The British North America Act: Past and Future” (1937) 15 Can Bar Rev 393 at 399 [Kennedy, “BNA Act: Past and Future”].

191. Ibid.

192. “Treaty Obligations: Part I,” supra note 156 at 582.

193. Ibid at 583.

194. Solum, “What is Originalism,” supra note 23 at 12.

195. “Judicial Review, Constitutional Interpretation, and the Democratic Dilemma: Proposing a ‘Controlled Activism’ Alternative” (2012) 64 Fla L Rev 1485 at 1509.

196. MacDonald, “Treaty Obligations: Part I,” supra note 156 at 583.

197. Supra note 15 at 302-304.

198. Solum, “Originalism Versus Living Constitutionalism,” supra note 25 at 1244.

199. Oyler, Kennedy & MacDonald, supra note 77 at 632.

200. “Judicial Interpretation of the Canadian Constitution,” supra note 80 at 280-81.

201. Ibid.

202. See MacDonald, “Treaty Obligations: Part I,” supra note 156 at 582-83.

203. Oyler, Kennedy & MacDonald, supra note 77 at 632.

204. WPM Kennedy, The Constitution of Canada 1534-1937: An Introduction to its Development, Law and Custom, 2nd ed (Oxford University Press, 1938) at 436 [Kennedy, The Constitution of Canada].

205. Supra note 84 at 34.

206. Ibid at 71.

207. “The Political Principles of Federalism,” supra note 122 at 344.

208. Special Committee on the British North America Act, supra note 75 at 28.

209. Ibid at 25.

210. Supra note 84 at 73-74.

211. “Judicial Interpretation of the Canadian Constitution,” supra note 80 at 283-84.

212. See Report to Senate, supra note 85; Scott, “Section 94,” supra note 106.

213. Canada, Book II, supra note 91 at 273.

214. “BNA Act: Past and Future,” supra note 190 at 398.

215. Supra note 49 at 370.

216. Supra note 48.

217. Gray, supra note 87 at 334.

218. Ibid.

219. Ibid.

220. See Canada, Book II, supra note 91 at 9, 24.

221. Tuck, supra note 84 at 75.

222. “The Canadian Constitution Seventy Years After” (1937) 15 Can Bar Rev 401 at 425.

223. The Constitution of Canada, supra note 204 at 554.

224. “BNA Act: Past and Future,” supra note 190 at 399.

225. See also Special Committee on the British North America Act, supra note 75 at 126.

226. See generally Browne, supra note 54; Brouillet, supra note 167.

227. See generally Sirota & Oliphant, “Originalist Reasoning,” supra note 20.

228. Yvonne Tew, “Originalism at Home and Abroad” (2014) 52 Colum J Transnat’l L 780 at 780.

229. Supra note 21 at 183.

230. See e.g. Brown, “Realism, Federalism, and Statutory Interpretation,” supra note 8; Risk, “Here Be Cold and Tygers,” supra note 8.

231. See Cairns, supra note 15 at 311.

232. “BNA Act: Past and Future,” supra note 190 at 398.

233. See “The Constitutional Convention of 1937: The Original Meaning of the New Jurisprudential Deal” (2001) 70 Fordham L Rev 459, DOI: .

234. Ibid at 463, 478.

235. See Leonid Sirota, “Originalism – The Talk” (6 May 2016), online (blog): [perma.cc/X455-RUVR].

236. Supra note 53 at 751.