Canada was managed by the French & later the British to exploit the resources of the colony. People as settlers (Colonists) having independent prosperous lives was an after thought, a happy consequence but not policy. Royal French governments either made leaving for the New World difficult or discouraged it. The Indians were also not keen on the “new settler” idea. New France always had a low population problem.
The British colonies whether they be private or royal were also originally set up to be engines of natural resource exploitation. However it didn’t work out that way. Benign neglect and actively recruiting colonists created conditions where people became Americans. People had the opportunity to build their lives, have things they couldn’t have in the mother country. By the time England felt compelled to reassert control it was too late. The colonies had their own governments, strong local cultures/traditions & the will to do things their own way. England’s only choice was to continue the policy of “benign neglect”. England chose not to do so & the rest is history.
But presumably the British Colonies in Canada were under the same edicts as the British Colonies that became the USA. So why then did the Americans find them objectionable while the British Canadians did not?
BroJoeK would have us believe that the abuses and usurpations only applied to Americans, not Canadians. Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I will operate under the belief that British policy toward's North America was the same in Ontario as it was in Massachusetts. In those days, and in British eyes, there was no significant distinction between the two.