Satisfactory Essays
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.
Get Access