Stories

Reconsidering Canada’s Unloved Constitution

Paul Bunner
September 2, 2014
Even the framers of Canada’s 1982 constitutional reforms thought they were flawed. But reopening the Constitution is a taboo subject among Canada’s political class and as a result, from Senate reform to internal trade to aboriginal rights, it is increasingly judges, instead of elected legislators, who are calling the shots. The contributors to the Fall Quarterly edition of C2C Journal examine the spectrum of constitutional maladies and offer provocative prescriptions for reform.
Stories

Reconsidering Canada’s Unloved Constitution

Paul Bunner
September 2, 2014
Even the framers of Canada’s 1982 constitutional reforms thought they were flawed. But reopening the Constitution is a taboo subject among Canada’s political class and as a result, from Senate reform to internal trade to aboriginal rights, it is increasingly judges, instead of elected legislators, who are calling the shots. The contributors to the Fall Quarterly edition of C2C Journal examine the spectrum of constitutional maladies and offer provocative prescriptions for reform.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

Compromise - Editorial MainCaptionThe idea for the theme of this edition of C2C Journal was originally born out of conversations I had with several of the surviving framers of the 1982 Constitution Act between 2001 and 2005. I wanted to know if they were satisfied with the way their work had been interpreted by their political successors and the courts. Former premiers Peter Lougheed, Allan Blakeney, Sterling Lyon, Brian Peckford and John Buchanan all expressed varying degrees of frustration and disappointment. Most of them felt the courts had usurped the power of elected legislators, and some were frankly astonished by rulings on things like gay marriage, prisoners’ voting rights, and aboriginal land and treaty claims that had been derived from the constitutional amendments they agreed to.

It seemed to me that if the framers didn’t like the way their Constitution was evolving, it probably needed more work. Brian Mulroney and the premiers who worked on the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords obviously felt the same. Mulroney’s primary objective was constitutional rapprochement with Quebec, but the agenda sprawled to include Senate reform and much else, and the whole process ended in disaster that destroyed the Progressive Conservative party and inflamed the separatist movement in Quebec.

More than two decades have passed since our last constitutional rodeo. Things are much calmer now, but Quebec still hasn’t “signed” the Constitution and relations between the judicial and legislative branches of government are difficult, to say the least. This year alone, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected a government nominee for the court, proclaimed the government’s Senate reform efforts unconstitutional, overturned Canada’s prostitution laws, and dramatically expanded the scope for aboriginal land claims.

Many would argue that all this is just part of the natural dynamic tension between legislators and the courts, perfectly in keeping with our common law tradition. In fact, most of the contributors to this edition of C2C would rather leave the Constitution alone. They might not like what was done to it in 1982, or how those changes have been interpreted by the courts, but they trust that our core democratic values and traditions will eventually prevail.

But some believe we’re in uncharted territory called judicial supremacy, led there by the codification of rights in the 1982 amendments. They fear for the future of our democracy if elected legislators are made irrelevant by the courts. They hope for a federal government and a prime minister with the courage to undertake another round of reform. It’s inconceivable that anything will happen before next year’s election, but if Stephen Harper’s Conservatives win, he might see opportunities for a legacy project tackling many of the objectives that have informed his political career.

If so, he’ll find some thoughtful advice from the contributors to this edition of C2C. Some, like John Robson, think the 1982 reforms were extremely misguided and require a complete overhaul.  Peter Stockland agrees our Constitution is dangerously flawed, but believes reopening it would be even more dangerous, and he’s confident the balance of power between courts and legislators will eventually restore itself. Yule Schmidt, meanwhile, contends that court interpretations of the aboriginal rights provisions in the 1982 Constitution are taking Canada ever deeper into racial division, at great peril to our social harmony and economic potential.

Marni Soupcoff thinks our Constitution is perfectly clear on inter-provincial free trade, but it was muddied by a Prohibition-era court ruling. Since then we have so surrounded it with barriers to competition and efficiency, it’s going to require litigation to restore the economic freedoms envisioned by the Fathers of Confederation. In a similar vein, Bob Tarantino says there’s nothing in our Constitution that can’t be fixed by a dedicated effort to achieve a more balanced philosophical perspective in our law schools and courts.

Ian Brodie is frankly astonished by the Supreme Court’s defence of the Senate status quo, but thinks limited constitutional reform might be doable with the threat of Quebec separatism in abeyance. And libertarian Quebec Conservative MP Maxime Bernier, in an interview with Mathieu Dumont, offers a surprising answer to the age-old constitutional question, What Does Quebec Want? Nothing except to be left alone, he says.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

A Likely Story: The “Diversity” Myth Consumes the Canadian Literary Scene

If a given minority is believed to have almost no presence in a particular industry or sector, that might suggest some bias at work. Certainly worth looking into, and potentially trying to rectify. But what if widespread misunderstanding of the essential numbers is distorting public perceptions? And what if the leaders and financiers of said industry – in this case, Canadian literature – are deeply invested in advancing a false narrative? Deciding to find out what is really going on in the world of Canadian books, Winnipeg-based novelist Bob Armstrong painstakingly charted the personal demographics of hundreds of Canadian writers and matched those data against their performance in a range of Canadian literary awards, promotional programs and festivals. His findings did not exactly advance a narrative of oppression.

“Genocide”? Canada’s Government Wanted to Close Every Indian Residential School in the 1940s

An avalanche of propaganda today urges Canadians to believe their country perpetrated a genocide against Indigenous people with its residential school system. Some proponents even want to criminalize statements disagreeing with such claims. But doing so will make the search for truth impossible. Digging deep into federal archives, Greg Piasetzki uncovers the complicated and perhaps surprising history of the now-reviled schools. Piasetzki’s careful research reveals not only the deep regard many federal officials had for the wellbeing of Canada’s native children, but also how they actively sought to shut down the entire system as early as the 1940s.

Defending the Refuge of History’s Perennially Persecuted People

Among history’s multiplicity of ethnicities, thousands over the millennia succeeded in carving out their own countries – while thousands more never did. Some conquered, subjugated or even annihilated their neighbours, while others managed to muddle through, and still others fell victim to their tormentors. But no people, notes David Solway, has been universally and eternally persecuted – in every century of its existence, and in every place where its members ventured. None except the Jews – with the only reprieves occurring during the brief times when the Jewish people had a place to call their own. In his review of Solway’s new book, Crossing the Jordan, Tom Flanagan encounters some magical turns of phrase, a stoutly argued case for the indispensable role of Israel, pugnacious assertions about expanding Islam and, above all, a rare prescience about the gathering global threat against the Jewish people.

More from this author

Good News From C2C Journal

C2C Journal is pleased to announce that thanks to the loyal and generous support of our readers, contributors and donors, the Journal is immediately increasing volume and frequency of original stories and essays, expanding staff, unveiling a redesigned website, and launching a sustained social media marketing push on multi-media platforms. Editor Paul Bunner has the details.

One step forward, two steps back for freedom

When he wasn’t kayaking on or swimming in the North Saskatchewan River near his home in Edmonton, C2C Journal editor Paul Bunner spent some of his summer fighting two battles for little freedoms in his local community. He won one and lost one. Although he’s a veteran political activist at the federal and provincial level, Bunner contends that the lifeblood of democracy must be nurtured at the foundations of society if it is to flourish at the top.

The Last Front Page

The rapidly shrinking newspaper business raises all kinds of questions. What will we wrap fish guts in? How will we light backyard fires? And where will we get reasonably accurate and important stories about what’s going on in our community, our country, and the world? The internet? Where global editor-bots decide what’s news? Where politicians can lie with impunity? Where fake news outsells real news? The short answer is yes. The longer and more encouraging answer is in the Spring edition of C2C Journal, which launches today with editor Paul Bunner’s lead editorial and career newspaperman Paul Stanway’s lament for the ink-stained wretches of yesterday’s news.

Share This Story

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.