Skip to main content

Reconciling Shared Rule: Liberal Theory, Electoral-Districting Law and “National Group” Representation in Canada

  • Aaron John Spitzer (a1)

Canada, like all representative democracies, apportions representation to individuals; also, like all federal states, it accords polity-based representation to federal subunits. But Canada is additionally a consociational state, comprising three constitutionally recognized “national groups”: anglophones, francophones and Indigenous peoples. These groups share power and bear rights beyond the bounds of the federal system. In recent decades, Indigenous peoples and francophones have appealed for representation as “national groups,” leading to constitutional challenges. Courts have either failed to address the constitutionality of “national group” representation or have rejected it as irreconcilable with individual voting rights. I suggest the former is unnecessary and the latter procedurally illogical. Drawing on the liberal principles of individualism, egalitarianism and universalism, I develop a framework contextualizing such representation within liberal theory. I then deploy this framework to analyze recent Canadian case law. I show that appeals for “national group” representation should be approached not through the lens of individual rights, but rather through the “constitutionally prior” lens of universalism.

Le Canada, à l’instar de toutes les démocraties représentatives, répartit la représentation entre les individus; de plus, comme tous les États fédéraux, il accorde aux sous-unités fédérales une représentation fondée sur la politie. Mais le Canada est aussi un État consociationnel, composé de trois " groupes nationaux " reconnus par la Constitution : les anglophones, les francophones et les peuples autochtones. Ces groupes partagent le pouvoir et ont des droits dépassant les limites du système fédéral. Au cours des dernières décennies, les peuples autochtones et les francophones ont réclamé une représentation en tant que « groupe national », ce qui a donné lieu à des contestations constitutionnelles. Les tribunaux n'ont pas abordé la constitutionnalité de la représentation des « groupes nationaux » ou l'ont rejetée comme étant inconciliable avec le droit de vote individuel. J'estime que la première position est superflue et que la seconde est illogique du point de vue des règles procédurales. En m'appuyant sur les principes libéraux de l'individualisme, de l'égalitarisme et de l'universalisme, j'élabore un cadre contextualisant une telle représentation au sein de la théorie libérale. Je déploie ensuite ce cadre pour analyser la jurisprudence canadienne récente. Je montre que les appels en faveur d'une représentation du « groupe national » ne devraient pas être abordés sous l'angle des droits individuels, mais plutôt sous celui de l'universalisme « constitutionnellement antérieur ».

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Reconciling Shared Rule: Liberal Theory, Electoral-Districting Law and “National Group” Representation in Canada
      Available formats
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Reconciling Shared Rule: Liberal Theory, Electoral-Districting Law and “National Group” Representation in Canada
      Available formats
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Reconciling Shared Rule: Liberal Theory, Electoral-Districting Law and “National Group” Representation in Canada
      Available formats
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (, which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Corresponding author
Department of Comparative Politics, University of Bergen, Box 7800, Bergen 5020, Norway, email:
Hide All
Arbour, Jane. 2003. “The protection of Aboriginal rights within a human rights regime: In search of an analytical framework for Section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” Supreme Court Law Review 21 (3): 371.
Asch, Michael. 1990. “Consociation and the resolution of Aboriginal political rights: The example of the Northwest Territories, Canada.” Culture X (1): 93102.
Barry, Brian. 1975. “Political accommodation and consociational democracy.” British Journal of Political Science 5 (4): 477505.
British Columbia Supreme Court. Campbell et al v. AG BC/AG Canada & Nisga'a Nation et al, [2000] B.C.S.C. 1123.
British Columbia Supreme Court. Dixon v. British Columbia (AG), [1989] B.C.S.C. 248.
Canada. Federal Court of Canada. Raîche v Canada (AG), (2004) F.C. 679.
Canada. Supreme Court of Canada. Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158.
Chouinard, Stéphanie. 2014. “The rise of non-territorial autonomy in Canada: Towards a doctrine of institutional completeness in the domain of minority language rights.” Ethnopolitics 13 (2): 141–58.
Coulthard, Glen. 2014. Red skin, white masks. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Courtney, John. 2001. Commissioned ridings: Designing Canada's electoral districts. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Dixon, Robert Jr. 1968. Democratic representation: Reapportionment in law and politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Elkins, David J. 1992. “Where should the majority rule? Reflections on non-territorial provinces and other constitutional proposals.” Centre for Constitutional Studies. University of Alberta.
Gray, John. 1995. Liberalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Gerken, Heather K. 2001. “Understanding the right to an undiluted vote.” Harvard Law Review: 16631743.
Foucher, Pierre. 2005. “Le juge et la gouvernance linguistique.” La gouvernance linguistique, ed. Wallot, Jean-Pierre. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.
Hirschl, Ran. 2004. “Juristocracy—political, not juridical.” The Good Society 13 (3): 611.
Isaac, Thomas. 2002. “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: The challenge of the individual and collective rights of Aboriginal people.” Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 21: 431.
Issacharoff, Samuel. 2008. “Democracy and collective decision making.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 6 (2): 231–66.
Issacharoff, Samuel, Karlan, Pamela and Pildes, Richard. 2007. The law of democracy: Legal structures of the political process. New York: Foundation.
Karlan, Pamela. 1993. “All over the map: The Supreme Court's voting rights trilogy.” The Supreme Court Review 1993: 245–87.
Katz, Robert. 1992. “The jurisprudence of legitimacy: Applying the Constitution to US Territories.” University of Chicago Law Review 59 (2): 779806.
Knight, Trevor. 2001. “Electoral justice for Aboriginal people in Canada.” McGill Law Journal 46: 10631116.
Kukathas, Chandran. 1992. “Are there any cultural rights?Political Theory 20 (1): 105–39.
Kymlicka, Will. 1989. Liberalism, community and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kymlicka, Will. 1993. “Group representation in Canadian politics.” In Equity and Community: The Charter, interest advocacy, and representation, ed. Seidle, Leslie. Montreal: IRPP.
Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford: Clarendon.
Ladner, Kiera. 1997. “Treaty Seven and guaranteed representation: How treaty rights can evolve into parliamentary seats.” Great Plains Quarterly: 85101.
Leger-Haskell, Maxine. 2009. “Federal electoral boundary redistribution and official language minority representation in Canada.” Doctoral dissertation. University of Ottawa.
McCrudden, Christopher and O'Leary, Brendan. 2013. Courts and consociations: Human rights versus power-sharing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCulloch, Allison. 2014. Power-sharing and political stability in deeply divided societies. London: Routledge.
MacMillan, John. 1998. On liberal peace. London: Taurius.
Magnet, Joseph. 1995. Official languages of Canada: Perspectives from law, policy and the future. Cowansville QC: Éditions Y. Blais.
Margalit, Avishai and Raz, Joseph. 1990. “National self-determination.” Journal of Philosophy 87 (9): 439–61.
Morse, Bradford. 2002. “Twenty years of Charter protection: The status of Aboriginal peoples under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 21: 385.
New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench. L'Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau Brunswick et al. v. New Brunswick. “Notice of action.” 2014.
New Brunswick. Electoral Boundaries and Representation Act, R.S.N.B. 2014 c. 106.
Nieguth, Tim. 2009. “An Austrian solution for Canada? Problems and possibilities of national cultural autonomy.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 42 (1): 116.
Niemczak, Peter and Jutras, Célia. 2008. Aboriginal political representation. Parliamentary Information and Research Service. Ottawa: Library of Parliament.
Noel, S.J.R. 1993. “Canadian responses to ethnic conflict.” In The politics of ethnic conflict regulation, ed. McGarry, John and O'Leary, Brendan. New York: Routledge.
Northwest Territories. Legislative Assembly. 1999a. Hansard. March 23.
Northwest Territories. Legislative Assembly. 1999b. “Report on Bill 15.” Appendix: Presentation by Gary Bohnet. Yellowknife: GNWT.
Northwest Territories Supreme Court. Friends of Democracy v. Northwest Territories (Commissioner), [1999] NWT S.C. 4256.
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. Reference re the Final Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, [2017] N.S.C.A. 10
Pal, Michael. 2015. “The fractured right to vote: Democracy, discretion, and designing electoral districts.” McGill Law Journal 61 (2): 231–76.
Pitkin, Hanna. 1967. The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pildes, Richard. 2004. “The Supreme Court, 2003 Term.” Harvard Law Review 118 (1): 25154.
Pildes, Richard. 2008. “Ethnic Identity and Democratic Institutions: A dynamic perspective.” In Constitutional design for divided societies: Integration or accommodation? ed. Choudhry, Sujit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Poirier, Johanne. 2008. “Au delà des droits linguistiques et du fédéralisme classique.” In L'espace francophone, ed. Thériault, Joseph-Yvon, Gilbert, Anne and Cardinal, Linda. Anjou, Quebec: Fides.
Poirier, Johanne. 2012. “Autonomie politique et minorités francophones du Canada: Réflexions sur un angle mort de la typologie classique de Will Kymlicka.” Linguistic Minorities and Society 1: 6689.
Requejo, Ferran, and Nagel, Klaus-Jürgen. 2017. “Democracy and borders.” Working paper series. no. 14. EUBorders. Institut Barcelona d'Estudis Internacionals.
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1996. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People. vol. 2. Ottawa, Canada.
Royal Commission on Electoral Reform. 1991. Final Report. vol. 1. Ottawa.
Schouls, Tim. 1996. “Aboriginal people and electoral reform in Canada: Differentiated representation versus voter equality.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 729–49.
Steiner, Henry J. 1990. “Ideals and counter-ideals in the struggle over autonomy regimes for minorities.” Notre Dame Law Review 66: 1539–60.
Stephanopolous, Nicholas O. 2013. “Our electoral exceptionalism.” University of Chicago Law Review 80: 769858.
U.S. Supreme Court. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
U.S. Supreme Court. Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996).
Van Dyke, Vernon. 1985. Human rights, ethnicity and discrimination. Westport CN.: Greenwood.
White, Graham. 1993a. “Northern distinctiveness, representation by population and the Charter: The politics of redistribution in the Northwest Territories.” Journal of Canadian Studies 28 (3): 528.
White, Graham. 1993b. “The adaptation of non-Aboriginal institutions of governance in the Northwest Territories.” Paper prepared for Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
Wippman, David ed. 1998. International Law and Ethnic Conflict. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique
  • ISSN: 0008-4239
  • EISSN: 1744-9324
  • URL: /core/journals/canadian-journal-of-political-science-revue-canadienne-de-science-politique
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed