The Constitution Acts of 1867 to 1982 - Case Study Example

The Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982 and Canadian politics Introduction A federal governmental system pertains to a bi-executive system, where government is divided into two parts, national (which is represented by a central governing authority) and sub-national (which pertains to delegated powers to individual political units). Simply, this translates into a central government that regulates affairs of the State and a provincial government that pertains to the needs and worries of the common people at ground level. This system allows the Central heads to worry about matters of foreign policy, defense and commercial law that benefit the country as a whole on a macroeconomic scale while matters directly affecting individuals within society living in a particular environment are dealt with Provincial authorities, who regulate matters of welfare and security within their regions. Thus, it becomes all the more important for the main Bill of Rights of a country, which for Canada equal to the Constitution Acts of 1867 with amendments made to it in 1982, to represent the correct division of power between the Federal and Provincial governments. The constitution Geographically, Canada is divided into three territories and 10 provinces. It supports two distinct main ethnic groups, the Quebecois who are well versed in French and the rest who communicate in English. The division of power would involve consideration to both the minority French-Canadians and the majority of the English speakers. Thus, some legislative authority must be granted to provinces while most of it is retained by the Federation, as is customary for a government system of this kind. It is for this reason that s. 91 to 95 of the 1867 constitution award legislative powers for both federal and provincial jurisdictions. S. 91 deals with the legislative authority of the Federal government whereas s. 92 pertains to the same at the provincial level. Moreover, all the residuary powers that have not been assigned to the provinces may also be dealt by the Parliament, which is allowed to “make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the provinces” (Constitution Act 1867, s. 91). Provincial responsibility also deals with sources of energy which are non-renewable (s. 92A) and education (s. 93) while s. 94 relates to the dealings with property and civil rights (new at the time the Constitution Act 1867 was enacted). Thus, while the English speaking majority is correctly represented in the Parliament, the Federal government enjoys enough power constitutionally in order to uphold the rights of the minorities. Division of power is scribed clearly in certain cases to the provincial government, such as in the cases of handling prisons, property and education but in other cases such as that of immigration policies and agriculture, power is shared between the federal and provincial jurisdictions (s. 95). This ensures two things, the first being the adherence to the British system of Parliament, which enables correct representation of all the minorities in the State and saves them from unjust policies that a majority might impose upon them. The concurrent presence of the federal and provincial governments, on the other hand, allow for cultural diversity to exist in the various provinces without being majority centric. Due to the presence of the latter, the French Canadians are awarded the same level of liberties as their English speaking majority consequently ensuring that their individual rights are protected, at least in theory. However, the existence of these two systems, where the country is represented by a Prime Minister who is in charge of a Federation, creates vagueness in division of power. In matters of administration of justice, for example, the constitution allows the Parliament to enact legislation dealing with “criminal law, except the constitution of courts of criminal jurisdiction, but including the procedure in criminal matters” (s. 91(27)). This effectively places all the relevant authority in the central government, except until attention is drifted towards s. 91(14) which awards provinces the power to engage in judicial matters, “including the constitution, maintenance, and organization of provincial courts, both of civil and criminal jurisdictions, and including procedure in civil matters in both courts” (Constitution Act 1867). This undoubtedly presents a challenge for both divisions, since their powers to regulate justice seemingly overlap. However, politically, this translates into Parliament drafting the laws such as the Criminal Code of Canada while the provinces regulate provincial law enforcement, such as the police force. Another seemingly similar overlap is within the regulation of marriage, governed by s. 91 and s. 92. The regulation of laws relating to marriage and divorce is confined to the jurisdiction of the Parliament s. 91(26). Thus, the parliament is allowed to enact laws such as the Divorce Act, which cover areas of private rights such as custodial concerns of one’s offspring, but the same fall under the awarded power of regulation to the provinces (s. 92(16)). These discrepancies have translated into political gripes which have led to unrest between the provinces, especially in the Quebec region. Classically, Canada has been the subject of rifts between ideologies as well, where Anglophone and Francophone founders both favored different forms of government, the former favoring the Parliament as the ultimate form of authority where as the latter favoring a Federation. The compromise that resulted led to diversity in governance, overlap of power and unrest within the civil society. Where Federal government gained too much power, the Quebec people resolved to oppose it in so much as the demarcation of powers between the provinces and Central government were clearly defined and there was no interference by one into the matters of another. This, in their opinion would maintain the correct expenditure of revenues gained from each province and individuals would also be protected from exorbitant amount of taxes. This culminated in a continuous rift between Central government and provincial autonomy. In recent years, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau from the late 60s to the mid 80s persuaded the people to favor the Central government by introducing agreeable policies, such as those on regulating national energy. He partook on several debates with the premier of the Parti Québécois, René Lévesque, and eventually won the Quebec referendums so that the people ended up favoring power with the federation more than upholding the Quebec sovereignty for the first time. The PM followed it through with the patriation of the Constitution, resulting in the Constitution Act of 1982, which incorporated within it the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This amendment was not only necessary but also crucial to maintaining harmony and a sense of unity between the provinces and the government in the increasingly globalized economic era. Conclusion It is indeed evident that the concept of Parliamentary federalism has greatly influenced Canadian politics. The amendment made in 1982 was not only the most advanced measure of protecting individual rights and civil liberties to date but also capable of bringing a greater sense of harmony in an increasingly globalized stage of economy and politics. Politicians would find it hard not to address the Quebec sovereignty debate by further proposals of patriation. Works Cited The Constitution Acts of 1867 to 1982. Read More