Given my age, every constitutional conference and associated controversy of the late 20th Century was a rite of passage and a bruising lesson in our capacity for political dysfunction. The night of the 1995 independence referendum left me in tears (even though the outcome was favourable for Canada, in the end).
These are things that I'm not keen to experience again, even if only vicariously.
I did enjoy reading your article and analyses, though. I especially liked the following line:
QUOTE
So the second paragraph of the whole bill is kind of… independence cosplaying.
END QUOTE
That this was how you called out the CAQ for indulging in political theatre was a sterling example of the panache with which you wield your pen (clatter your keyboard?)
I'm always tickled by this sort of note. At the risk of bursting your bubble, a lot of people mind very much that "Quebec" — meaning, as I took care to emphasize, the unpopular party that forms the current lame-duck government of Quebec -- is writing one of these. But nobody has particularly effective tools to stop it. Similarly, I couldn't stop an Alberta government from passing simple legislation it labels a constitution. Would all of it pass the Supreme Court, according to procedures the Alberta government endorsed in 1981? Maybe not. I've pointed out where I don't expect Quebec's document to pass a court challenge. I mean, you're welcome to turn all of this into a team sport if you like.
It wasn’t my intention to indulge in whataboutism here, although rereading my comment I now see I sort of did - and how you would interpret it as a “team sport” response.
Sorry, but I live out here in the hinterlands of the West, and am thoroughly sick and tired of the way this country seems to have double standards for literally everything.
Quebec seems to be allowed to have its cake and eat it too, on far too many issues.
It's beside your main topic here, but I note Jolin-Barrette also emphasizes Quebec's dying with dignity law. It's exponentially better than what's available in the rest of Canada because it allows people with Alzheimer's to protect themselves before they decline. Quebec led the country with its abortion decisions and is doing so again.
I heard you on Thursday on RadCan and you even surprised Celine with your knowledge of history. As far the Constitution is concerned, just a big joke to rally groups leaving the boat..they are aboard the Titanic.
I think Céline was surprised that I had anything good to say about this scheme. If Jolin-Barrette had tried to bluff his answer to my question at the news conference, I wouldn't have. But he had to come clean. I'd bet money that a transcript of his answer will be evidence in any court challenge to S. 2 of this draft constitution, and will be sufficient to get the section laughed out of court — long before it gets to the Supreme Court. Checks and balances.
I like the idea of provincial constitutions in general. Of course Quebec, or any province, may adopt their own provincial constitution to regulate their own provincial affairs within the constraints of the Canadian constitution.
However, I strongly dislike and disagree with a lot of the specific contents of this proposed Quebec constitution.
First of all, many of its assertions are flagrantly unconstitutional within the Canadian constitution. If adopted, this document would have the Quebec government trying to usurp federal responsibilities in many areas and jurisdictions or blatantly nullifying federal law and the Charter. That, I think, is unacceptable.
Secondly, this document claims that Quebec gets to unilaterally change the Canadian constitution to its liking. To Hell with that idea!
Finally, and most significantly: This bill revived the old "compact theory" of Confederation that Pierre Trudeau explicitly rejected in the constitutional negotiations of the 80s. That is, that "Canada" has no existence in itself as a unified entity, but is merely a loose association of sovereign, autonomous provinces. That "Canada" is the sum of its parts, a community of provinces, and nothing more. I reject that, out of hand, on principle.
Of course Quebec may adopt a provincial constitution if it wishes. But this specific text is unacceptable.
Paul, I will leave this question for you to respond to. Can you draw a correlation between the CAQ's current level of support in Quebec, and the Federal Liberals back in December 2024.
Both Francois Legault popularity numbers, and the Former Priministers numbers at the time were not what we would call " stellar".
Hence, it appears to be a grasping at straws to stop the decline in the polls and the dissatisfied voters.
A written constitution is a set of guiding principles until it is not. We need look no farther than Washington in 2025 to witness a noble 250-year-old set of high-minded principles unravelling.
As I’ve written elsewhere on this comment board, to me that’s a good argument for having some others lying around. They might come in handy. And incidentally, I’m pretty sure that in Washington, it’s not what’s written down that’s the problem.
I was surprised by this Constitution project by the Legault government. In a time of economic troubles and much uncertainty on the future with the USA and troubles all around the world, one wonders does Mr Legault really think that he will get re-elected with this project or is he just delusional.
I'd prefer a higher threshold, but honestly not much higher. The point is not to lock in a constitution for eternity; it's to stop treating everything in this country as a test of the country's worthiness to survive. And if I may, given what we've seen over at the neighbours', to rapidly multiply the number of venues where "rights talk" takes place in Canada. Multiple redundancy being a good idea for safety equipment.
Maybe some sort of constitutional conference where the party members are actually proportional to their results in the last election. A majority of this body to both create and amend it. In my opinion this would enhance the legitimacy of what is supposed to be a foundational guiding document and not just a particular party’s platform.
Great. More posturing and pandering to Quebec “sovereignty”, and more complaints about the special needs and grievances of Quebec. With emphasis, this time, on protecting Quebec from the rest of Canada. While, of course, “equalization” continues to flow; and we are all expected to genuflect to (and finance) Quebec preferences (like supply management).
What a silly distraction and waste of effort! As if labeling a legal instrument “constitutional” makes it different from ordinary provincial legislation, or would alter the existing division of powers, one iota!
Which - to be clear - is not to say that our current constitution is a model of effective governance. Because it clearly isn’t. Just look at our seeming inability to do much of anything, let alone do it quickly or “on budget”. Except for talk. Because there’s certainly plenty of that. As we watch our prosperity decline - now down to the level of Alabama (I think).
Because that is Canada’s current material reality. Sluggish growth, low productivity, dysfunctional housing markets, declining private investment, fewer jobs for young people, worries on the education front, a deteriorating health care system, and growing challenges from the USA. Along with troubling levels of local crime and disorder; and significant indebtedness at both levels of government, as citizens have come to believe that they can borrow or vote themselves rich.
But, is the answer to these challenges more “inalienable rights”, “set asides”, and “special status” for Quebec? Or more “constitutional” and “rights” talk from academics and regional satraps? All with the ostensible view of creating a new provincial constitution? No doubt full of elastic and aspirational words, that will then allow interest groups even more avenues to challenge the handiwork of legislators and demand something different. But as a legal exercise, not a political one.
In other words, duplicating, at the provincial level, what already happens with the Charter; where, for example, we have learned that bike lanes on Toronto streets are a “Charter Right”. Whether citizens like it or not.
So much for the primacy of elected legislatures, or the expressed “will of the people”. It is simply laughable. And, of course, transparently elitist.
As for the practical utility of having a “parochial” provincial constitution, in addition to the federal one… I will say only this: it would be a boon for lawyers and a burden for the (unelected) judges, who will have to make sense of the new powers and constraints. With Judges making more law, and elected legislators making less. With each decision taking years.
Along with lots more “lawfare”, as interest groups try to achieve what they could not persuade their fellow citizens to vote for. And judicial pronouncements can cut out both the politicians and the electors, in favour of the interests of the aggrieved individual.
But enough idle chatter about a (hypothetical) “Quebec Constitution”. In my view, we should ignore this shiny political object, which was meant only to distract. Let’s, instead, just get on with that much-promised (or hinted at) “Quebec referendum”. Then we can all talk turkey.
Because once it was established that every province can pursue “sovereignty association”, the rules of the game were irrevocably changed. So the real question may turn out to be, whether the US can offer a better “deal” than “Laurentian Canada”. Reminiscent of the calculus in which Newfoundland engaged in 1949.
Under the tripartite BC treaty negotiation process, First Nations spend more time thinking through their constitutions, and do a better job of seeking popular support for them, than this petty “électoraliste” exercise seems to do.
The CAQ seems to be separating Quebec from Canada much like a beaver fells a tree. Little bites and nibbles here and there until the eventual sudden collapse. If I were in the PQ I'd be jealous.
New Brunswick did a swerve back in the day. It 'uploaded' its constitutional desires on official languages and official linguistic communities to the Constitution of Canada. Sections 16 and 16.1, to wit, now entrench this obligation which began as provincial laws without constitutional protection. A provincial constitution would, on this matter anyways, be superfluous.
Given my age, every constitutional conference and associated controversy of the late 20th Century was a rite of passage and a bruising lesson in our capacity for political dysfunction. The night of the 1995 independence referendum left me in tears (even though the outcome was favourable for Canada, in the end).
These are things that I'm not keen to experience again, even if only vicariously.
I did enjoy reading your article and analyses, though. I especially liked the following line:
QUOTE
So the second paragraph of the whole bill is kind of… independence cosplaying.
END QUOTE
That this was how you called out the CAQ for indulging in political theatre was a sterling example of the panache with which you wield your pen (clatter your keyboard?)
Thank you.
Perhaps a new Ontario Constitution could have a clause forbidding the Supreme Court from ruling on bike lane locations.
So no one will mind at all if Alberta writes one of these next…?
Color me sceptical.
Canada’s special people are allowed to ignore federal laws at will, it seems.
But when any non-Laurentians dare to try anything similar (Sovereignty Act, anyone?) it is “deeply disturbing” and “probably unconstitutional”.
I'm always tickled by this sort of note. At the risk of bursting your bubble, a lot of people mind very much that "Quebec" — meaning, as I took care to emphasize, the unpopular party that forms the current lame-duck government of Quebec -- is writing one of these. But nobody has particularly effective tools to stop it. Similarly, I couldn't stop an Alberta government from passing simple legislation it labels a constitution. Would all of it pass the Supreme Court, according to procedures the Alberta government endorsed in 1981? Maybe not. I've pointed out where I don't expect Quebec's document to pass a court challenge. I mean, you're welcome to turn all of this into a team sport if you like.
It wasn’t my intention to indulge in whataboutism here, although rereading my comment I now see I sort of did - and how you would interpret it as a “team sport” response.
Sorry, but I live out here in the hinterlands of the West, and am thoroughly sick and tired of the way this country seems to have double standards for literally everything.
Quebec seems to be allowed to have its cake and eat it too, on far too many issues.
If consistency is what you're after, I am against both the Alberta Sovereignty Act and the proposed Quebec constitution!
It's beside your main topic here, but I note Jolin-Barrette also emphasizes Quebec's dying with dignity law. It's exponentially better than what's available in the rest of Canada because it allows people with Alzheimer's to protect themselves before they decline. Quebec led the country with its abortion decisions and is doing so again.
I heard you on Thursday on RadCan and you even surprised Celine with your knowledge of history. As far the Constitution is concerned, just a big joke to rally groups leaving the boat..they are aboard the Titanic.
I think Céline was surprised that I had anything good to say about this scheme. If Jolin-Barrette had tried to bluff his answer to my question at the news conference, I wouldn't have. But he had to come clean. I'd bet money that a transcript of his answer will be evidence in any court challenge to S. 2 of this draft constitution, and will be sufficient to get the section laughed out of court — long before it gets to the Supreme Court. Checks and balances.
I like the idea of provincial constitutions in general. Of course Quebec, or any province, may adopt their own provincial constitution to regulate their own provincial affairs within the constraints of the Canadian constitution.
However, I strongly dislike and disagree with a lot of the specific contents of this proposed Quebec constitution.
First of all, many of its assertions are flagrantly unconstitutional within the Canadian constitution. If adopted, this document would have the Quebec government trying to usurp federal responsibilities in many areas and jurisdictions or blatantly nullifying federal law and the Charter. That, I think, is unacceptable.
Secondly, this document claims that Quebec gets to unilaterally change the Canadian constitution to its liking. To Hell with that idea!
Finally, and most significantly: This bill revived the old "compact theory" of Confederation that Pierre Trudeau explicitly rejected in the constitutional negotiations of the 80s. That is, that "Canada" has no existence in itself as a unified entity, but is merely a loose association of sovereign, autonomous provinces. That "Canada" is the sum of its parts, a community of provinces, and nothing more. I reject that, out of hand, on principle.
Of course Quebec may adopt a provincial constitution if it wishes. But this specific text is unacceptable.
Paul, I will leave this question for you to respond to. Can you draw a correlation between the CAQ's current level of support in Quebec, and the Federal Liberals back in December 2024.
Both Francois Legault popularity numbers, and the Former Priministers numbers at the time were not what we would call " stellar".
Hence, it appears to be a grasping at straws to stop the decline in the polls and the dissatisfied voters.
A written constitution is a set of guiding principles until it is not. We need look no farther than Washington in 2025 to witness a noble 250-year-old set of high-minded principles unravelling.
As I’ve written elsewhere on this comment board, to me that’s a good argument for having some others lying around. They might come in handy. And incidentally, I’m pretty sure that in Washington, it’s not what’s written down that’s the problem.
Yes, the biggest problems have been the norms and traditions most people thought were hard and fast rules, but turned out not.
Another problem is laws where it turned out enforcement was either voluntary or optional.
Its people trying to manouver around the constitutional guardrails.
I was surprised by this Constitution project by the Legault government. In a time of economic troubles and much uncertainty on the future with the USA and troubles all around the world, one wonders does Mr Legault really think that he will get re-elected with this project or is he just delusional.
Laurent, c'est un Écran de fumée.
Just a smokescreen to deflect from the real tanking in support of the CAQ
What's the point of a constitution that can be amended by a simple majority vote in the legislature?
Ask New South Wales.
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/about/Pages/The-Constitution-of-New-South-Wales.aspx#:~:text=Most%20of%20it%20can%20be,a%20referendum%20of%20NSW%20voters.
I'd prefer a higher threshold, but honestly not much higher. The point is not to lock in a constitution for eternity; it's to stop treating everything in this country as a test of the country's worthiness to survive. And if I may, given what we've seen over at the neighbours', to rapidly multiply the number of venues where "rights talk" takes place in Canada. Multiple redundancy being a good idea for safety equipment.
Maybe some sort of constitutional conference where the party members are actually proportional to their results in the last election. A majority of this body to both create and amend it. In my opinion this would enhance the legitimacy of what is supposed to be a foundational guiding document and not just a particular party’s platform.
Great. More posturing and pandering to Quebec “sovereignty”, and more complaints about the special needs and grievances of Quebec. With emphasis, this time, on protecting Quebec from the rest of Canada. While, of course, “equalization” continues to flow; and we are all expected to genuflect to (and finance) Quebec preferences (like supply management).
What a silly distraction and waste of effort! As if labeling a legal instrument “constitutional” makes it different from ordinary provincial legislation, or would alter the existing division of powers, one iota!
Which - to be clear - is not to say that our current constitution is a model of effective governance. Because it clearly isn’t. Just look at our seeming inability to do much of anything, let alone do it quickly or “on budget”. Except for talk. Because there’s certainly plenty of that. As we watch our prosperity decline - now down to the level of Alabama (I think).
Because that is Canada’s current material reality. Sluggish growth, low productivity, dysfunctional housing markets, declining private investment, fewer jobs for young people, worries on the education front, a deteriorating health care system, and growing challenges from the USA. Along with troubling levels of local crime and disorder; and significant indebtedness at both levels of government, as citizens have come to believe that they can borrow or vote themselves rich.
But, is the answer to these challenges more “inalienable rights”, “set asides”, and “special status” for Quebec? Or more “constitutional” and “rights” talk from academics and regional satraps? All with the ostensible view of creating a new provincial constitution? No doubt full of elastic and aspirational words, that will then allow interest groups even more avenues to challenge the handiwork of legislators and demand something different. But as a legal exercise, not a political one.
In other words, duplicating, at the provincial level, what already happens with the Charter; where, for example, we have learned that bike lanes on Toronto streets are a “Charter Right”. Whether citizens like it or not.
So much for the primacy of elected legislatures, or the expressed “will of the people”. It is simply laughable. And, of course, transparently elitist.
As for the practical utility of having a “parochial” provincial constitution, in addition to the federal one… I will say only this: it would be a boon for lawyers and a burden for the (unelected) judges, who will have to make sense of the new powers and constraints. With Judges making more law, and elected legislators making less. With each decision taking years.
Along with lots more “lawfare”, as interest groups try to achieve what they could not persuade their fellow citizens to vote for. And judicial pronouncements can cut out both the politicians and the electors, in favour of the interests of the aggrieved individual.
But enough idle chatter about a (hypothetical) “Quebec Constitution”. In my view, we should ignore this shiny political object, which was meant only to distract. Let’s, instead, just get on with that much-promised (or hinted at) “Quebec referendum”. Then we can all talk turkey.
Because once it was established that every province can pursue “sovereignty association”, the rules of the game were irrevocably changed. So the real question may turn out to be, whether the US can offer a better “deal” than “Laurentian Canada”. Reminiscent of the calculus in which Newfoundland engaged in 1949.
Sounds like independence in all but name - exquisitely danced since 1995
Under the tripartite BC treaty negotiation process, First Nations spend more time thinking through their constitutions, and do a better job of seeking popular support for them, than this petty “électoraliste” exercise seems to do.
The CAQ seems to be separating Quebec from Canada much like a beaver fells a tree. Little bites and nibbles here and there until the eventual sudden collapse. If I were in the PQ I'd be jealous.
New Brunswick did a swerve back in the day. It 'uploaded' its constitutional desires on official languages and official linguistic communities to the Constitution of Canada. Sections 16 and 16.1, to wit, now entrench this obligation which began as provincial laws without constitutional protection. A provincial constitution would, on this matter anyways, be superfluous.
A fascinating and unexpected post!