When we think of the Canadian Constitution, images of an archaic document that embodies what it is to be Canadian may come to mind. The absolute definition of our laws, rights, systems of governance and sovereignty are embedded within its pages and therefore seems to represent the structure of Canada. It would be easy, in light of this perception, to label the constitution as a product of ‘Modernist’ thinking. Especially when considering that it finds its roots in the 16th century European “Age of Enlightenment.” Its prime focus concerns itself with the shaping of our political and social reality by ensuring and safeguarding our capitalist ideology. It also provides a reasoned, logical approach to gaining truth and justice (through the judicial branch) and provides Canadians with a definitive structure to promote the progress of business, education, human rights and governance. But, is this document really that definitive? On close inspection, the interpretative nature of the constitution becomes apparent. From allegations of a prime ministerial monarchy (Mellon, 2013), to the federally sanctioned mistreatment of First Nations Peoples, the constitution seems ambiguous and interpretive in nature. Therefore, the Canadian Constitution is a representative example of a ‘Post Conventional’ grand philosophy.
Born of British colonizers in 1867, the Canadian Constitution brought a political system, based on the Westminster model to Canada, in the form of the British North American Act (BNA). It reflected a structure steeped in parliamentary history and tradition and assigned Canada it’s colonial designation. This meant that the ultimate decisions and meditative measures (between provinces and the federal government) were overseen by Britai...
... middle of paper ...
... rules with which we structure and govern our society? Perhaps the answer lies in the juxtaposition of the two ideas. One being a proponent of seeing things through many lenses and the other using those lenses to create cleavages that allow for change in the system. This particular government seems to have used its interpretive lens to leverage enough power to rule ‘in the absolute’. Although, this paper is not a commentary on the evils perpetrated on behalf of the Constitution by Prime Minister Harper. Rather, a perspective on how it has been used, to show its flexibility. Perhaps in future reformations of the Constitution, the application of this philosophy will help us to understand and accept that there is no definitive answer to our Constitutional problems. We are left only with an imperative to keep asking questions that lead to truths with more questions.
The Meech Lake accord was a set of constitutional amendments that were designed to persuade Quebec Province to accept the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 (Brooks 152). This accord derives its name from the Meech Lake, where these negotiations were held by Mulroney Brian, the Canadian Prime Minister, and the ten premiers of the ten Canadian Provinces (Brooks 211). By the time the Canadian constitution was being implemented, Quebec was the only province that had not consented to it. Somehow, the partition of the constitution in 1982 was carried out without Quebec’s agreement, but it was still bound by the same law. Attempts were made to persuade this province to sign the constitution, which it agreed to do but only after its five demands are fulfilled by the Canadian government. Unfortunately, these demands were not met and this accord failed in 1990, when two provincial premiers failed to approve it. This paper answers the question whether Quebec asked for too much during the Meech Lake Accord negotiations.
Originalism, an orthodox principle of legal interpretation, focuses on interpretation pursuant to the original understanding of constitutional words . This incorporates arguments from the ‘text, context, purpose and structure of the constitution’. The originalist method of constitutional in...
William Lyon Mackenzie King, Canada’s longest serving prime minister, is known for both the great contributions he brought to Canada and for the scandals he was involved in. The one event that makes him most famous to Canadians is the King-Byng Affair of 1926. During this event, Mackenzie King asked Lord Byng to dissolve parliament in order to force a new election as he had lost with a minority. Because King’s intentions were to regain a majority government, Byng refused out of distrust for King’s plans and King was replaced in power by the Conservatives. While William Lyon Mackenzie King’s actions were in accordance with all the laws regarding his power as Prime Minister, he acted for selfish reasons thus putting him in the wrong. Mackenzie King’s and Lord Byng’s histories will be quickly analyzed to understand their actions in the affair. Right after, King’s options and reasons for dissolving parliament will be analyzed. Thirdly, Byng’s options and reasons for refusing King’s request will be researched. Once enough evidence has been collected, the end results of this affair will be discussed and the conclusion as to whether or not King was right to go against responsible government will be made.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau was arguably one of the most vivacious and charismatic Prime Ministers Canada has ever seen. He wore capes, dated celebrities and always wore a red rose boutonniere. He looked like a superhero, and often acted like one too. Some of the landmark occurrences in Canadian history all happened during the Trudeau era, such as patriating the constitution, creating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the 1980 Quebec Referendum. However, it is Trudeau’s 1969 “white paper” and the Calder legal challenge which many consider to be one of his most influential contributions to Canadian history.
Stevenson, Garth. "Canadian Federalism: The Myth of the Status Quo." Reinventing Canada: Politics of the 21st Century. Ed. M. Janine Brodie and Linda Trimble. Toronto: Prentice Hall, 2003. 204-14. Print.
The Founding Fathers and Canada’s Founders both faced many obstacles and concerns when working towards creating the best possible form of government for their respectable nations. The Federalist Papers seek to counter the Articles of Confederation whereas Canada’s Founding Debates is a discussion between supporters and opponents of Confederation. Between the Founding Fathers and Canada’s Founders in the Founding Papers chapter Federal Union, there are many common concerns about the future of the country. When there is a change in how a country is structured, it brings concern over group rights and interest being ignored for the common good, and it is very
Despite the stagnation that appears in society, the development of a country and the very act of living in a country is a constantly evolving process. No aspect of the past encapsulates the concept of confederation being a living process better than society’s treatment and acknowledgement of Louis Riel. The changes that take place and the unique legacy he leaves behind in Canada demonstrates the morphing of Riel within the fabric of Canada. The process of confederation is always in motion and it is a process that has been changing since Canada was first created. When Bill C-147 names Riel as a Founding Father of confederation this marks a change in how the government viewed his impact on confederation and the overall development of Canada.
Newman, Garfield et al. Canada A Nation Unfolding. Toronto: Mc Graw – Hill Ryerson Limited, 2000.
This paper supports Thomas Flanagan's argument against Native sovereignty in Canada; through an evaluation of the meanings of sovereignty it is clear that Native sovereignty can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan outlines two main interpretations of sovereignty. Through an analysis of these ideas it is clear that Native Sovereignty in Canada can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty.
Thompson, John Herd, and Mark Paul Richard. "Canadian History in North American Context." In Canadian studies in the new millennium. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008. 37-64.
The British North America Act went into effect July 1st, 1867 creating a union known as the Dominion of Canada, but this did not complete the debate on the Confederation issue. Many Nova Scotians continued their opposition to the idea and it would take considerable time before all Nova Scotians would accept the fact of Confederation. “These Nova Scotians, disgruntled at their treatment by Great Britain, found that their loyalty had markedly diminished. The more they considered taking over the responsibility for their own affairs from England, however, the greater trust they had to place in Confederation.”25 Confederation struck a balance between the rights of English and French speaking Canadians. Nevertheless, many divisions, conflicts, and debates would occur not only in Quebec but also in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick over this balance. Economic disparities between the Maritimes and the rest of Canada would also create many problems for the years following 1867. As a result, Confederation can be viewed as a beginning and not an end.
The Confederation act of 1867 without question has had a major influence on the status of contemporary Canada. It has helped shape Canada into one of the worlds most politically and economically powerful countries; a country that is strong, independent, and united. There was a series of events which led to the confederation of Canada, some which are more significant than others. However, I believe that despite the significance of events such as the British encouragement of uniting its North American colonies, the central and key reason for confederation was the fear of potential American (Yankee) inhabitance (whether by persuasion or invasion) of the divided and vast British North American colonies, and the way that the “Fathers of Confederation” were able to take advantage of this situation and persuade reluctant colonies to join Confederation. A strong and united nation could not be easily invaded or bought. These essential factors will be discussed in the paragraphs to come.
Canada’s parliamentary system is designed to preclude the formation of absolute power. Critics and followers of Canadian politics argue that the Prime Minister of Canada stands alone from the rest of the government. The powers vested in the prime minister, along with the persistent media attention given to the position, reinforce the Prime Minister of Canada’s superior role both in the House of Commons and in the public. The result has led to concerns regarding the power of the prime minister. Hugh Mellon argues that the prime minister of Canada is indeed too powerful. Mellon refers to the prime minister’s control over Canada a prime-ministerial government, where the prime minister encounters few constraints on the usage of his powers. Contrary to Mellon’s view, Paul Barker disagrees with the idea of a prime-ministerial government in Canada. Both perspectives bring up solid points, but the idea of a prime-ministerial government leading to too much power in the hands of the prime minister is an exaggeration. Canada is a country that is too large and complex to be dominated by a single individual. The reality is, the Prime Minister of Canada has limitations from several venues. The Canadian Prime Minister is restricted internally by his other ministers, externally by the other levels of government, the media and globalization.
Thomas, David M.. Canada and the United States: differences that count. Third ed. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2008.
On one hand, political constitutionalists argue that parliamentary sovereignty is the underlying principle in the British constitution as power and law making are bo...