The Constitutional Federalism Of Canada

As time goes on, some countries become more relevant in the global sphere while others start to fade away. Canada is a country that only becomes more relevant as time goes on. Since being granted full sovereignty, Canada has had a growing role as a major world player. Much of their international growth has to do with its close ties to the United States and the United Kingdom. However, the country has also undergone huge change and refocusing on a domestic level. With influence from both Europe and the United States, Canada has a very unique system of governing. This paper will focus on a few major areas of Canada. It will look into the history of Canada, the structure of its government, its politics, and many of the major issues it faces today.

Pierre Elliotte Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada during the 1970s, was the man who saved Quebec from separating from Canada by using the War Measures Act very effectively. At that time, Quebec was in a bad situation because of a terrorist group called the FLQ (Front de libération du Québec), that had been bombing Quebec since 1963 and gathering people to carry violent demonstrations and destruction. The situation got worse by each passing day as the FLQ’s revolutionary movement turned into terrorism. The government faced a tough situation. Pierre Trudeau could not see his country getting divided and took a strict action. The government didn’t have any safe options, but Trudeau handled the matter very tactfully by following the right path,

“Gens du pays, c 'est votre tour, De vous laisser parler d 'amour”, those were the only words to be heard across the arena, as Rene Levesque, then Prime Minister of Quebec delivered his speech on the defeat of the Sovereignty Association Referendum. His speech, “À la prochaine fois” (“Until next time”) was one that he hoped to never deliver during his lifetime. On May 20th, 1980, the long awaited referendum that would lead to negotiations with Canada for the province, Quebec, resulted in a resounding no, with a 59.5% vote. (Lévesque, 1980) The defeat marked a resounding blow and stalemate to Levesque’s hopes of establishing an independent Quebec and defeating his long term rival, Pierre Trudeau. In an emotionally wrought campaign that swept the nation, the outcome of the referendum was determined by Quebec Prime Minister, Rene Levesque’s inability to manipulate ambiguous language where Trudeau succeeded, swaying the largely uncertain voters in favour of the federalists. Though the two principles of the respective sides contradicted each other, and was thus, the underlying cause of the referendum, it was the personal nature of the conflict between Trudeau and Levesque coupled with the manipulation of language that would ultimately influence the results of the referendum.

Prior to the Quebec Referendums, many national movements in regards to national movement which drove nationalism of French ethnicity. In order to understand what the Quebec Referendums reveal about Canadian government reveals, the context the Quebec Referendum was set needs to be understood as well as the existing strained relationship between Canadians and Quebecois. Prior to the referendums, Quebec nationalists and federalists have been dominant figures in Canadian politics. In essence, this paper explores 1) the context prior to the referendum in order to illustrate the significance of the Quebec referendum, 2) briefly discuss the referendum results and 3) tie in the following in order to exemplify what the Quebec Referendums reveal about Canadian Government. As this paper will illustrate, the referendums are multi-faceted issues and as Boucher brings up, what happen to the true Canadianism, "compromising to avoid confrontation and reaching consensus"? Unfortunately for Quebecois, in order to protect their distinct identity, they have been depicted as an insensitive tyrant by dealing with direct confrontation. On a superficial level, the Quebec Referendums reveal the Canadian government is divided amongst two distinct cultures of Quebecois and Inuit who make up a

Part I: Mandatory Long Essay Question (24 points) In The Value of A just Society, Pierre Elliott Trudeau explained that the Constitution Act of 1982’s primary goal was to protect individual rights rather than collective rights. Furthermore, he thought territorially concentrated minorities should not be given special rights. Analyse the linguistic rights and the Aboriginal rights jurisprudence since 1982 and determine if Trudeau’s constitutional objective has materialized. Your answer should be no more than 1500 words.

F.L. Morton examines the political impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by comparing pre-Charter practices to post-Charter developments in five different areas: judicial behaviour, public policy, interest group behaviour, federalism, and executive behaviour. Morton presents the Charter through its continuity and change, beginning with the move away from Britain’s “unwritten constitution” and distinguishing the doctrine as constitutional supremacy that still depends on public opinion. He argues that due to the Charter’s constitutionality, Canadian courts are able to have a more active and influential role in interpreting and enforcing the listed rights which is a negative development in Canadian democracy.

More so, many Quebeckers were finding greater economic opportunities in the United States, which fostered concerns about the economic isolation of Quebec, which could ultimately become part of the United States and lose any form of Francophone independence: “Quebec’s economic weakness could be seen already in the flood of emigration toward the United States” (Silver 46). In this case, the underlying debate about provincial rights in the new federal government had to be addressed to ensure that Ontario did not usurp the provinces under a primarily Anglophone government. These clashing interest define how the threat of British colonialism and the economic and military aggression of the United States posed a major threat to Cartier and the Bleu Parti (Smith 43). These political negotiations defined the major efforts to unify the nation under MacDonald and Cartier’s federal plan as the two major provinces of Canada. This political culture created an opportunity to provide greater legislative and principal authority to countermand the new central government created through the Canadian

Fred Cutler and Matthew Mendelsohn’s article “Unnatural Loyalists or Naive Collaborationists? The governments and Citizens of Canadian Federalism”, delved into a compelling analysis of Canadian citizens and federalism. In a country of much diversity, as discussed in lecture, it is difficult for citizens to hold the ‘right’ government accountable because of the blame shifting each level of government does. To give an illustration, this article briefly touches upon the propaganda the provincial and federal government use to shift blame on one another for policies such as healthcare and education. However Cutler and Mendelsohn go one step further and analyze if Canadian citizens are able to judge policies without allowing their provincial status

For those looking at Canada from an outside perspective they may assume that Canada had a long political fight with its British motherland to gain its patriation given their ties from colonialism. However, that was not particularly the obstacle Canadians had, provided that the Statue of Westminster gave Canada its opportunity in 1931. In fact the obstacles Canadians had at the time were other provinces failing to agree with one another on how to proceed from there on. Only in 1982 were these disagreements resolved. However, this paper is not focusing on how it was resolved, because much of that is well-known. This paper will focus on why it took Canada so long to patriate by examining failed attempts on agreeing on the domestic amending formula.

They felt that their right of existence has been violated. People argued that the federal government and the local governments could help the Quebecers gain their cultural identities back without going through devolution, and they also made French as one of the official language of Canada. In addition, they ensured that the French-Canadian would be given education and culture rights through specific laws that governed it. But numerous disagreements arose during the discussion between the provinces. “The effort aroused tremendous opposition in English Canada, and failed,” (The Case for a Sovereign Quebec, page 1).

McRoberts argues that Anglophone Canada has never been responsive to Quebec and its distinct needs. But to make matter worse, Anglophone Canada has taken on the opinions of Trudeau, and as such view giving any extra powers to Quebec as unfair. Thus, true recognition of Quebec has not happened, and the outlook for its future is not very bright. Seymour adds to this by stating what English Canada has not recognized is Quebec`s linguistic identity, as French, and its cultural identity, as bilingual. Finally, Gagnon and Taylor argue that the only way to properly recognize Quebec is through asymmetrical federalism. This will allow Quebec sufficient autonomy to protects its own culture as it sees

Many people believe The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, founded by Pierre Elliott Trudeau benefited and became the base for our country’s foundation. It is believed by many, that the Charter created individual rights and freedom. However, while all this may be true, I will argue that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms negatively impacted Canada, and that Canadians are still feeling these effects today. I will also examine the Charter did more harm to Canadians than good. The Charter Rights and Freedoms affected the operation of trials along with judiciary powers, multiculturalism and provincial rights, which undermined Canadas intended democracy and de-centralized government.

From the years of 1945-2000, Canada changed and developed as a country. These changes had both negative and positive effects, and were quite controversial. With a global crisis at hand, Canada found itself involved in international conflicts like they’ve never experienced before. Meanwhile, Canada was also dogged with internal issues, which were both political and economic, as it changed society. Canada was faced with problems of immigration, multiculturalism, Quebec separatism, as well as regionalism. This made Canada’s society change drastically. With Canada’s changes came the development of Canada’s national identity. Canadians began to view their country differently, and Canada’s identity took ahold of a new meaning.

The power struggle has always been a fight within Canada, due to the vast size of the country. Over the years the government has done a good job of satisfying/subsiding certain regions concerns, and/or issues. Obviously the government cannot please everyone, thus resulting in the constant debate of Centralist VS. Decentralist. Centralists believe that a majority of the power, strength, and control should remain in Ontario, and Quebec; where as, Decentralists believe that the power should strengthen all the provinces, and ripple down to the other periphery regions. The National Policy implemented in 1879 by the Conservative Federal Government was brought in to help the Canadian economy; however, there were a couple of downsides for many Canadians.

100 years ago today, the votes came in for the Charlottetown Accord with 54.4% of Canadians voting against it. This was yet another failed attempt to please Quebec, but it only made things worse. With tensions remaining high between the French and English Canadians, there is still no news of a third attempt, fearing that history will repeat itself. Canada can’t afford another failure; many think that it will push Quebec off the edge of become independent. Even though there are a lot of Canadians who can’t forget the past of Quebec, there are also many who don’t understand why this day is so significant. In order to explain that, we need to go back in time to the late 1900s. One of the key points in Canada’s relationship with Quebec happen shortly after the war; the