Constitution: It's back, some assembly required

Since 1992, there has only been one way for Canadian politicians to talk about the Constitution -- and that's to say "we're not talking about the Constitution." 

Lately, though, it's occurred to me that we are talking about the Constitution in Canada -- including many of the debates that occurred around the Charlottetown accord talks in 1992. We're just not calling it a constitutional discussion. 

Exhibit A: Whether we like it or not, we have to reallocate seats in the House of Commons and that's a discussion that has major constitutional principles attached to it. See the Mowat Centre report issued yesterday or the little story I wrote about it. 

Exhibit B: We're also talking about Senate reform and that's a discussion headed to the Supreme Court. If the federal Conservatives want to head off challenges that they're letting the courts decide our constitutional issues, they might want to open up their Senate-reform plans for a full, open debate. Back-door Senate reform, or incremental change, might not just cut it. 

Exhibit C: The proposal for a national securities regulator touches on some of the very same issues that drove the debate over economic union in the Charlottetown accord. And that's also a matter before the courts. Again, no national debate means that the courts will have to be activist. 

Exhibit D: The necessary and looming debate over health-care financing is going to force the federal government and provinces to confront their constitutional responsibilities and the place of the Canada Health Act in a modern Canada. The recent Insite decision by the Supreme Court also put that federal-provincial tension on the table. 

Exhibit E: Equalization. Several provinces in Canada have been making noises about fundamental reform required in the constitutionally proscribed program that is aimed at evening the economic playing field between the provinces. If we start talking about changing it, sorry folks, but we're talking then about the Constitution too. 

 

I'd argue that all this evidence points to the fact that while we've been sleeping, lulled by political assurances that we're not reopening the Constitution, we actually are having a constitutional debate.

It's just not happening at the first ministers' table. In fact, there's no table at all. This is more like a constitutional debate you'd buy at Ikea -- some assembly required. Anyone have an Allen wrench? 

Comments

[Darwin O'Connor]

I don't see how talking about how the current constitution should be interpreted is the same as "reopening the Constitution"?

[Will Mackenzie]

Exhibit E: Last May, 2010, Angus Reid Public Opinion revealed that "52% support reopening Canada’s constitutional debate to discuss the possibility of replacing the monarch with an elected head of state; 32% are opposed." Only 33% favoured Canada remaining a monarchy.

This is a debate we can no longer afford to ignore. Are we supposed to wait until we're in crisis mode to do so?

[Ian Peach]

There is a real risk that the Senate issue will drag us back to the table and, after last time, I predict that that would result in Senate abolition, as all other ideas eventually bog down in a morass of irreconcilable intergovernmental conflicts. Maybe we can try to change the amending formula while we're at it, just for some light entertainment!

[Jolly Wally]

Don't let this "Minority" Majority elected Prime Minister have any part with this sensitive issue. Our Prime Minister is stacking all the higher echelons in government with his own appointed cronies in order to implement his desires to reform Canada in his eyes. It's a power/control thing! This current Government , hopefully, is not here for the long term and the proof in the pudding will bubble to the top of the pot once 4 years elapse and the final results surface economically as well as socially for all of us. History repeats itself for those ignorant of History!

I witnessed a similar situation under Prime Minister John Diefenbaker in the 1950's. Mr. Harper is nothing but a retrace/ more ever bad repeat of that Conservative era. Do we really want to go back to the 1880's? I might add, we know it was a Conservative Government in the 1950's then but the current enigmas banner flown by Mr. Harper under so called Conservative disguise is simply an appointment of.. CRAP. This begins with a big C... for Con-Conservative...R for a radical Reform Party..A...for Alliance for a fallen flag and finally a big lying "P" for an assumed Party Conservative undertaking to have you all believe that the Harper Government is there for all Canadians... especially for the poor and middle class.

For those of you Canadians that didn't vote in this past Federal or Provincial elections then may I encourage that you all move to Communist China, North Korea or Cuba and remain silent. You just don't value your freedom here in Canada by being able to vote and then don't. If you remain non-participant then we all ultimately lose in a democracy.

Do let the Harper Government continue to destroy all that in the past that has been taken for granted for to the advantage of the those privileged.

Look around... all your basic staples have escalated in price... do you just want to work to sustain yourselves without any residual capital for the other joys of life?

Take charge and VOTE. I can't believe why the electorate of this Country have chosen to sit on the seat of complacency and non involvement in democratic principles. Other nations that don't have this right to vote are currently in revolt in removing DICTORIAL REGIMES. Do you want this in Canada?

I sincerely thank you for your indulgence and enspire that you get involved....it's not hopless and don't feel that you are not counted or have an influence in your destiny.

[Ernest Semple]

THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION HAS A MAJOR FLAW

The 1982 Constitution took away much protection of individuals.
It did this by elevating the so called rrights of groups as in fascist societies.
In practice the group rights are lost if one is rejected from group membership as in being thrown out of a union group because of loss of employment.
Some other flaws in Canada's new constitution make it impossible for Supreme Court Judges to resolve conflicts with laws of individual provinces.

Ernest Semple, Montreal

[Ernest Semple]

HERE'S THE ALLEN WRENCH AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED

The 1982 constitution took away individual rights across the board, and trumped them with new group rights. This is the method of fascist societies as Europeans well know. The special group rights must be expunged from our constitution. First of all we must eliminate all language laws and give back freedom of expression in public.
Group rights and official multiculturalism are both illusions, not fact.
That is your Allen key to reconstruct the constitution.
By the way that's a nice neat review listing.in the article.
Ernest Semple, Montreal