In 1982, Canada had almost gained its long awaited goal of complete independence from Britain. However, the British still had control over their most important document; the Constitution. By 1982, Trudeau believed that he had achieved enough goals as Prime Minister in order to convince the British to sign over the Constitution to Canada. This would be an extremely controversial and beneficial agreement for Canada, as they would have the power to govern themselves completely without being ordered by other parties. However, many Canadian leaders tried and failed in the past to patriate the Constitution, and trying to do so would be a huge political risk. Despite the strong benefits that would come from patriating the Constitution, 8 out of the …show more content…
First of all, the federal government was now able to deal with language and other rights issues more effectively. Since Canada now had control over the constitution, the federal government was now able to ease tensions created by French and English relations. Moreover, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was entrenched in the Constitution. This meant that it was firmly established in Canadian law, and that it would be extremely hard for it to be removed or changed in any significant way. Likewise, the rights of Aboriginals were entrenched in the Constitution. This would mark the first time that this occurred, and would also ease previous tensions that flared up between the federal government and the Aboriginals. In addition, women were not entrenched in the Constitution. This meant that they were not guaranteed the rights and freedoms included in the Charter, enraging women across Canada. Finally, had its historical veto power removed by the other premiers of Canada. As a result of this, Quebec was now not able to change the outcome of federal issues alone. However, many Quebecers saw it as a betrayal, and this sparked new separatist movements that were previously non-existent. Thus, the Constitution that Canada fought so hard to patriate for had a variety of drastically important
When the Pontiacs war came to an end, the British found that they had to do much more in order to fulfill the needs of the French Canadians. As had been mentioned earlier, there are those Canadians who had close relations with the French at the time that the latter had seceded and left the land in the jurisdiction of the British. In order to satisfy this population, the British came up with the Quebec act of 1774. This document contained among other things, the parts of the French civil law that would remain place. Additionally, the document allowed for the extension of Quebec’s boundaries, which would now extend to the south of the Ohio River.
Many years ago, French and British explorers found land that they claimed and fought for, through time they turned this land into Canada. This country began named New France, ruled by the French people, then as British North America, ruled by the British people. The French and the British had frequently fought over power, but this is what ended up shaping the provinces and territories in Canada. Events that impacted Canada were the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 , then the Treaty of Paris in 1763, the Forming of Upper Canada in 1791, and the Act of the Union in 1849, when a responsible government was formed and Canada became one. The land of Canada began with an unsteady system, and ended with responsible government, having a democracy and giving
“Canada’s road was evolutionary, not revolutionary.” To what extent do you agree with this question? The road to Canada’s independence was evolutionary due to changes and factors such as the formation of the new country, the new leading government and it was mostly made of negotiations to find what will best fit the new country. After the English took over New France, at that time called Lower Canada.
Timothy Chua Candidate Number: Word Count: 3,076 Abstract: To what extent was the Act of Union a positive step towards peace for Canada? The essay introduces a very fresh British North America outlining some causes of the mass immigrants coming in, mentioning Loyalists, and Pioneers arriving from Europe.
Furthermore, the constitution was written to ensure the rights of Canadians are not violated. The Canadian Constitution is the one document which should be read by all Canadians, as it applies to all Canadians and plays the single most significant role in our lives. The Canadian constitution as a blueprint for Canada’s government The Canadian Constitution is the blueprint
A constitution is unique to each country as it states the fundamental principles according to which a country or state is governed and considers most important. Most constitutions include principles of the state, fundamental rights of each individual that cannot be denied and the methodology of the government. The Canadian constitution was finalized in 1982 ending the BNA act and the Egyptian constitution of 2014 was modified from the constitution of 1971. Canada’s constitution prioritizes individual rights and freedoms and is evident in the 12 headings. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is integrated into Canada’s constitution and outlines the rights and freedoms regarding the individual.
A constitutional amendment is a very tricky task to accomplish and is not something most Prime Ministers wish to take on. Not only that, but the political parties in Canada have different views on what reform is best for the country, few of them are favored by seven provinces. While under the leadership of conservative Prime Minister Harper his government attempted to submit two Senate reform proposals to Parliament without getting constitutional amendments. His first proposal never became law due to being refused by the then liberal dominated Senate while his second proposal Bill C-7, the Senate Reform Act, was also refused due to needing a constitutional amendment to implement it. (The Canadian Encyclopedia, Senate)
Due to this, the constitution was left unchanged for an extended period of time, and Britain was still controlling it. However, towards 1980, Pierre Trudeau led a significant expedition to vouch for the rights of his own Canadians. First, he pushed to resolve the issue with the Quebec separatists who wanted Quebec to be a separate country at the same time, share the same currency and everything else with them. Once this issue was over, Trudeau motivationally put in his efforts and made the change to the constitution which made this act significant due to the unfinished independence that was deeply rooted in our justice system, which needed to be changed. The Constitution Act, 1982 cherished the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution and finished the unfinished business of Canadian autonomy enabling Canadians to correct their own particular Constitution without requiring endorsement from Britain.
The language and regional conflicts within Canada, gave the flag dispute added weight. It grew more general concerns about cultural rights, particularly those involving Quebec and the rest of the nation. In addition, the Canadian Parliament developed into a highly heated political topic. The Progressive Conservative Party, led by John Diefenbaker, passionately opposed the change of a new flag, while the Liberal Party, led by Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, strongly supported it. Political parties became divided as a result of the argument, which resulted in a big political disagreement that affected the general public's opinion of the government and caused them to side with the party they favored.
The protest led to awareness and acknowledgment of the initial treaties and agreements. To what extent has the federal government affirmed collective rights in the legislation over time? Canada is different than any other country, including the United States, because of our collective rights. The purpose of them is so different groups of people can have an identity. Which overall, would create a diverse society with many identities which people can be a part of.
Institutional and historical analysis often portray the motives of governments, especially in the cases of Quebec separatism and Aboriginal mistreatment. History describes attempts at compromise to rectify the problems by altering political institutions to provide more autonomy to the provinces, witness in various accords and the methods described previously. However, in regards to Aboriginals a historical relationship of exploitation and eradication sheds on the systemic issues that Aboriginals cope with and the institutions that caused them. As scholars of Canadian politics, it is important to consider historical and institutional analyses when looking at any issue, as it reveals the underlying motives of actors in regards to the cleavages that comprise a state.
In his article “The Federal Constitution and the Defects of The Confederation”, Max Farrand delves back into the 1700s in order to examine the creation of the Constitution and even moreso the reasons behind its inception. The Constitutional Convention was a very interesting event that has always had some historical mystery and even some common ignorance around what happened at the convention. As a way to inform the people reading this articles of the intentions of the convention, Farrand formulates his thesis around this idea of how and why the Constitution was made. On the first page of his article, he states, “That the Constitution was framed because of the defects in the Articles of Confederation is universally accepted, but it does not
The Confederation established parliamentary democracy which is the government system we use today. It was a step to make Canada into an independent country. This also expanded Canada westward. The political system has been very unwell since the mid-1850s. The power of John A. Mcdonald, Étienne Cartier, and George Brown designed a governmental union of the
The Charter is the center to which all Canadian rights circle around. It is what allows Canadians to freely express themselves. The Charter protects the rights and freedoms of every single individual in Canada. However, the Charter is especially large and covers many topics and so it tends to conflict itself. Seen in the case of speaking rights where, freely speaking about a topic can to lead to hate speech which can be a criminal offence.
Before the Charter, many people may argue that Canada was a free and democratic country. Canadians had the freedom of expression, equality and the principles of fundamental justice. What changed with the creation of the Charter was that rights and freedoms were given constitutional status, and judges were given the power to strike down laws that infringed on them. In 1982, most Canadians agreed that the introduction of the Charter was going to monumental. But on the contrary, over 30 years later, numerous laws have been struck down by interpretation of the charter and remedial techniques that have been developed by courts.