ThePreamble to theConstitution Act, 1867 (French:Préambule de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867) is a provision of theConstitution of Canada, setting out some of the general goals and principles of the Act. Although the Preamble is not a substantive provision, the courts have used it as a guide to the interpretation of theConstitution of Canada, particularly unwritten constitutional principles which inform the history and meaning of the Constitution.

TheConstitution Act, 1867 is the constitutional statute which establishedCanada. Originally named theBritish North America Act, 1867, the Act continues to be the foundational statute for the Constitution of Canada, although it has been amended many times since 1867. It is now recognised as part of the supreme law of Canada.

TheConstitution Act, 1867 is part of theConstitution of Canada and thus part of the "supreme law of Canada".^[1][2] The Act sets out the constitutional framework of Canada, including the structure of thefederal government andthe powers of the federal government and the provinces. It was the product of extensive negotiations between the provinces ofBritish North America at theCharlottetown Conference in 1864, theQuebec Conference in 1864, and theLondon Conference in 1866.^[3][4] Those conferences were followed by consultations with the British government in 1867.^[3][5] The Act was then enacted by theBritish Parliament under the name theBritish North America Act, 1867.^[6][7] In 1982 the Act was brought under full Canadian control through thePatriation of the Constitution, and was renamed theConstitution Act, 1867.^[2][6] Since Patriation, the Act can only be amended in Canada, under the amending formula set out in theConstitution Act, 1982.^[8][9][10]

The Preamble reads:

Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:

And whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the Interests of the British Empire:

And whereas on the Establishment of the Union by Authority of Parliament it is expedient, not only that the Constitution of the Legislative Authority in the Dominion be provided for, but also that the Nature of the Executive Government therein be declared:

And whereas it is expedient that Provision be made for the eventual Admission into the Union of other Parts of British North America:^[11]

The origins of the Preamble are in theQuebec Resolutions adopted by theFathers of Confederation at the Quebec Conference in 1864:

• Resolution 1 stated that "The best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America" would be promoted by a federal union under the British Crown, on terms that were just for all the provinces.
• Resolution 2 summarised the proposed federation, with a general government "charged with matters of common interest to the whole country", and local governments "charged with the control of local matters in their respective sections", and with provision for the future entry of the other British North American provinces and territory.
• Resolution 3 affirmed that the Conference desired "to follow the model of the British Constitution, so far as our circumstances will permit."^[12]

These three resolutions were continued at theLondon Conference of 1866, which finalised the agreement for Confederation.^[13] They became the basis for the Preamble, which took its current form in the final draft of the bill, dated February 9, 1867.^[14]

The Preamble has not been amended since it was enacted in 1867.^[11]

The Preamble has had a significant impact on constitutional jurisprudence concerning parliamentary democracy, the nature ofCanadian federalism, therule of law and theindependence of the Canadian courts.

The Preamble's statement that Canada is to have a government "similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom" is an indication that the principles of British parliamentary government, particularly the concept ofresponsible government, will apply in Canada.John A. Macdonald made this point in theConfederation Debates in theProvince of Canada in 1865:

In the Constitution we propose to continue the system of responsible government which has existed in this province since 1841, and which has long obtained in the Mother Country. This is a feature of our Constitution as we have it now, and as we shall have it in the Federation ... With us the Sovereign, or in this country the Representative of the Sovereign, can act only on the advice of his ministers, those ministers being responsible to the people through Parliament.^[15]

This approach is carried out by the fact that the monarch is the head of the federal executive, aided by thePrivy Council for Canada. The federal Parliament is composed of the monarch, theSenate and theCanadian House of Commons, similar to theBritish Parliament. Parliament operates under the principles of responsible government, which had been implemented in British North America in the 1840s, beginning in Nova Scotia.^[16][17]

One of the first cases where the Preamble was cited in detail was inReference Re Alberta Statutes. In that case, Alberta had in 1937 passed several statutes to implementsocial credit monetary theories, which had then beendisallowed by the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta. The Alberta Legislative Assembly then passed three additional statutes, which the federal government referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for anopinion as to their constitutional validity. One statute dealt with bank taxation, the second with the implementation of social credit monetary theories, and the third applied to the news media, entitledAn Act to ensure the Publication of Accurate News and Information. The third act required media outlets to publish information furnished to them by the chairman of the government's social credit board, and to provide information as to their sources of news stories back to the chairman.^[18]

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the bank taxation act and the social credit act were not within provincial jurisdiction. With respect to theAccurate News Act, the six judges all held that it wasultra vires, but differed on their reasons. Three judges (JusticesKerwin,Crocket andHudson) held that it was inherently linked to the social credit act, and therefore fell with that act. The other three judges (Chief JusticeDuff and JusticesDavis andCannon) went further. They held that the Preamble's reference to a constitution "similar in principle to the United Kingdom" was a guarantee of the vibrant, free debate necessary for a parliamentary democracy to exist and function. The attempt by the Alberta government to limit free media infringed that principle and wasultra vires on that basis. This approach has come to be known as the "implied bill of rights" theory of the Preamble.^[19]

On appeal, theJudicial Committee of the Privy Council agreed with the Supreme Court's rulings, but did not find it necessary to address the issue of an implied bill of rights under the Preamble.^[20]

The Preamble was discussed in a later Supreme Court case, theInter-delegation Reference in 1950. The issue there was a proposal that the federal and provincial governments could delegate their legislative authority to each other. The Supreme Court unanimously held that they could not do so, because the nature of the federation was that the Constitution assigns particular subjects to each government. The governments could not change that allocation of subjects by means of delegation. One of the judges, JusticeFauteux, cited the Preamble, as well as the Quebec Resolutions, in support of this conclusion:

The suggestion that this distribution of legislative authority, enacted by the Imperial Parliament, under the then "existing circumstances", could now be altered by Parliament or the Legislature of a province by transfer, exchange, or delegation, is repugnant to the very intent manifested in the above Resolutions ultimately implemented under the Act.^[21]

The Preamble was also cited in thePatriation Reference of 1981, which considered whether the federal government's proposal to seek unilateral constitutional amendments from the British Parliament was constitutional. A majority of the Court held that as a matter of constitutional law, the federal government could proceed unilaterally. The Preamble's reference to federalism did not impose a legal restriction on the federal government. However, a differently-constituted majority in the same case held that as a matter ofconstitutional convention, the federal government could not proceed unilaterally. There had to be substantial provincial agreement. The majority on convention cited the Preamble's reference to the federal principle in support of the constitutional convention.^[22]

InRe Manitoba Language Rights (1984-85), the Supreme Court unanimously relied on the Preambles to theConstitution Act, 1867 and theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to provide a constitutional underpinning for the rule of law. ThePreamble to theCharter expressly recognises the rule of law. The Court held that the rule of law is also supported by the Preamble to theConstitution Act, 1867, by means of the statement that Canada is to have a constitution "similar in principle" to that of the United Kingdom. The Court concluded that the rule of law is one of the foundational principles of the British constitution, and therefore the Preamble implicitly recognises the rule of law as a key provision of the Constitution of Canada.^[23]

The Preamble also played a part in a major case on the relationship betweenparliamentary privilege and theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly) (1992-93). Speaking for the majority of the Court, JusticeMcLachlin held that parliamentary privileges are a necessary component of the parliamentary system Canada inherited from the United Kingdom. Parliamentary privilege is therefore part of the Constitution by means of the Preamble's reference to a "constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom". The majority concluded that theCharter could not be used to override decisions taken by the Speaker of the House of Assembly, in the exercise of the Assembly's power to control access to its own proceedings.^[24]

In 1997, theSupreme Court of Canada gave a decision explaining and consolidating its case-law on the Preamble, inReference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court. The main issue before the Court was the financial security of the judiciary, which the Court held was a necessary component ofjudicial independence, protected by the Preamble. Speaking for a majority of eight judges of the court, Chief JusticeLamer summarised the Court’s jurisprudence on the Preamble:

• preambles can be used to identify the purpose of a statute, and also as an aid to construing ambiguous statutory language;
• the preamble to theConstitution Act, 1867, is not only a key to construing the express provisions of the Act, but also invites the use of those organizing principles to fill out gaps in the express terms of the constitutional scheme;
• the Preamble's reference to the desire of the founding provinces "to be federally united into One Dominion" addresses the structure of the division of powers, while its reference to a "constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom", indicates that the legal and institutional structure of constitutional democracy in Canada should be similar to that of the British legal regime out of which the Canadian constitution emerged;
• democratic governance and freedom of political speech are interdependent, and only Parliament can legislate limitations on political expression;
• the Preamble provides constitutional protection forparliamentary privileges for Parliament and the provincial legislatures, to ensure that they can perform their functions free from interference by the Crown and the courts;
• the judicial independence of the courts is guaranteed;
• the Preamble points to the legal order that envelops and sustains Canadian society, which as stated inRe Manitoba Language Rights is "an actual order of positive laws", guaranteed by therule of law;
• paramountcy of federal laws is an example where the Supreme Court has inferred a basic rule of Canadian constitutional law despite the silence of the constitutional text;
• the doctrine of full faith and credit, which requires the courts of one province to recognize the decisions of the courts of another province, is another example where the Court has inferred a constitutional rule which is not found in express terms in the constitution.^[25]

InReference re Secession of Quebec (1998), the Court again commented on the nature of the Preamble. The unanimous judgment of the Court stated:

Allowing for the obvious differences between the governance of Canada and the United Kingdom, it was nevertheless thought important to thus emphasize the continuity of constitutional principles, including democratic institutions and the rule of law; and the continuity of the exercise of sovereign power transferred from Westminster to the federal and provincial capitals of Canada.^[26]

The Court confirmed that the Preamble can be used as the basis for "filling of gaps in the express terms of the constitutional text".^[27]

Section 2 of the act (repealed in 1893) provided that the references to the Queen (i.e.Queen Victoria) included her successors.

Section 9 of the Act states that the executive authority is vested in the Queen.

Section 11 of the Act creates thePrivy Council for Canada, which is the constitutional basis of thefederal Cabinet.

Section 17 of the Act provides that the Parliament of Canada shall consist of themonarch, theSenate, and theHouse of Commons.

Section 18 of the Act defines the parliamentary privileges of the Senate and the House of Commons.

Section 99 of the Act provides security of tenure for federally appointed superior court judges.

• Corbett, S.M. (1998)."Reading the Preamble to theBritish North America Act, 1867".Constitutional Forum.9 (2). Centre for Constitutional Studies,University of Alberta:42–47. RetrievedJuly 25, 2025.

• Constitution Act, 1867
• Canadian Confederation
• Federalism in Canada
• Preambles

• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• Use Canadian English from March 2024
• All Wikipedia articles written in Canadian English
• Use mdy dates from March 2024
• Articles containing French-language text