4) Constitutional Documents, Culture Groups, and Visible Minorities

Tips for the next lessons:Minority Group What strides have been made on

behalf of the group?What setbacks have occurred?

What kinds of current issues still exist for these stakeholders, or, what issues have arisen based on our efforts to remove barriers?

French Canadians

Aboriginal Canadians

Research a group (on your own) that has been affected by laws, or, is fighting for adequate representation

Conflict and Compromise: Canada’s Constitutional History

Timeline of key Constitutional Documents

Royal Proclamation - 1763◻ Established common law of England in all British territories in North

America◻ The Crown owned all non privately held land; prevented anyone

from negotiating land deals with Aboriginal peoples without the authority of the Crown

◻ Granted aboriginal peoples title to use and occupy the land◻ Outlined certain rights for Aboriginal peoples- described the

relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the crown as a nation to nation

◻ Proclamation is still referenced to uphold the rights of Aboriginal peoples.

Quebec Act -1774◻ It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith. ◻ It restored the use of the French civil law for private matters while

maintaining the use of the English common law for public administration, including criminal prosecution.⬜ Reflected in the current composition of the Supreme Court where

three of the nine justices are from Quebec because of their expertise and experience in the Civil Code of Quebec

Constitutional Act -1791◻ Divided British North America into Upper and Lower Canada◻ Upper Canada received English law and institutions◻ Lower Canada retained French civil law and institutions, including

seigneurial (semi-feudal) land tenancy, and the privileges accorded to the Roman Catholic Church.

◻ Established a government structure comprised of a Lieutenant-Governor, executive and Legislative assembly

◻ Executive was responsible to the Lieutenant-Governor and not the elected Legislative assembly

(BNA) Constitution Act - 1867◻ Canada formed, 4 provinces (Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova

Scotia)◻ BNA–Dominion of Canada◻ enacted by the British Parliament◻ Established that Canada’s system of government would be modeled on

the British parliamentary system◻ set out division of powers between Federal and Provincial◻ guaranteed language, religion and cultural rights for French Canadians◻ Constitutional Monarchy◻ preservation of French civil law in Quebec

Statute of Westminster - 1931◻ Amendment by British Parliament◻ Ended Canada’s colonial status◻ Canadian government could now change laws previously passed as

acts of British parliament that applied to Canada◻ granted more autonomy for Canada◻ full independence for Canada, responsibility for foreign affairs◻ Canada could still not amend the BNA Act, because federal and

provincial governments could not agree on amending formula

Supreme Court of Canada - 1949◻ Established the Supreme Court of Canada as the highest

and final court of appeal in the Country◻ Supreme Court Act of 1875 established the Supreme

Court of Canada, however it was not the supreme authority on Canadian law until 1949

◻ before this time, the highest court was the English Privy Council

The Supreme Court Today◻ final court of appeal; hears approx 120 cases per year◻ appeal must be based on issue of law or an error on the part of a

judge◻ justices (judges) are appointed from Superior Court judges or

lawyers with at least 10 years experience◻ they must reside in Ottawa ◻ they must not have any other jobs or businesses◻ they must retire at 75 years

Constitution Act -1982◻ Constitution was patriated (brought home by Prime Minister

Trudeau◻ Included an amending formula reached by all provinces

except Quebec (they wanted veto power)◻ Amending formula; any change to the Constitution must be

agreed on by 2/3 of the provinces comprising 50% of the population

◻ Incorporated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, entrenching the rights of Canadians

Meech Lake Accord -1987◻ The Progressive Conservative government of Prime Minister Brian

Mulroney attempted to win Québec's consent to the revised Canadian Constitution since Quebec rejected it.

◻ Gave provinces more power and declared Quebec a ‘distinct society’ with a right to protect its unique culture, but, was not ratified.

◻ All provincial legislatures had to agree to it though and Manitoba did not meet the deadline (no Native rights in it)

◻ Newfoundland refused to even vote on it

The Charlottetown Accord -1992◻ The Progressive Conservative government of Prime Minister Brian

Mulroney attempted to win Québec's consent to the revised Canadian Constitution since Quebec rejected it.

◻ Recognized Quebec as a distinct society and gave Aboriginals special rights but in a national referendum 54% of Canadians voted against it

*Quebec has still not signed but is subject to the Constitution and protected by the Charter

Focus on Quebec/French Canadians

- Other things to keep in mind:- Boer War/Naval Crisis- World War I, World War II

Conscription Crisis

The Quiet Revolution (1960-1966)❑ Although the Liberal government modernized economics and

education in Quebec, French speaking Quebecois began to resist the English speaking economic and social dominance within Quebec, and began to assert their language and cultural rights through politics. Motto was “Maitres chez nous”.

❑ People felt the Liberal’s government to change/protect Quebec was too slow; felt that Canada’s interests were not reflective of Quebec’s.

❑ The Canadian government under Pierre Trudeau introduced “official bilingualism”, guaranteeing federal government services in both languages through the Official Languages Act, 1969 (later refined in 1988).

Separatism■ During the 1960s Quebecers increasingly questioned their province’s role

within confederation■ Separatism meant different things to different groups of Quebecers ❑ for some it meant total independence as a political state, for others it

meant sovereignty-association in a limited partnership with Canada ■ In 1968 the Parti Quebecois (PQ) was formed and with this the separatist

movement gained strength■ By 1973, PQ was the official opposition in Quebec■ Violent movements take rise (FLQ founded in 1963; “independence or

death”, bombing kidnappings - James Cross and Pierre Laporte in October 1970)

Sovereignty-Association:■ concept put forth by the Parti Quebecois government

whereby Quebec would become a sovereign jurisdiction in all areas of law making, but would maintain economic association with the rest of Canada (common currency)

■ Exclusive power to make laws, levy taxes and establish foreign relations

The 1980 Referendum■ May 20, 1980 - date for promised

referendum on Quebec’s future in Canada

■ Campaigned for sovereignty-association

■ Nearly 60% voted NON to sovereignty-association

The 1995 Referendum■ 1994 Elections brought a new man in power of PQ, Jacques Parizeau. ■ After Meech Lake and Charlottetown, the Quebec government held a 2nd

referendum on October 30, 1995 which asked the question should Quebec separate from the rest of Canada.

■ Federalists argued economic costs of separation; Aboriginals opposed separation because they were uncertain whether or not they would be able to remain part of Canada

■ Result - 50.6% voted NON■ Federal government’s response to this was trying to convince Quebecers

that life in separate Quebec would be difficult and costly

Federal Government Response■ The federal government took action and referred the matter to the Supreme

Court of Canada.■ The Supreme Court had to decide whether:

1. Under the Constitution of Canada, can Quebec secede from Canada unilaterally?

2. Under International Law, can Quebec secede unilaterally?3. In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the

right of Quebec to secede from Canada unilaterally, which one would take precedence over the other?

Supreme Court Decision■ Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Quebec had no unilateral right to

secede without consulting the rest of Canada.■ However, the Supreme Court also stated:❑ But. . . . “the right of other provinces and the federal government cannot

deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession, should a clear majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal.”

❑ Also. . . if the people of Quebec were to win a referendum “by a clear majority on a clear question, “then Canada has a “constitutional duty to negotiate.”

Aftermath of the S.C.C Decision■ Court did not define what a “clear majority “was- merely stated, ❑ “It is for the political actors to determine what would constitute a clear

majority on a clear question in the circumstances under which a future referendum vote may be taken”

The Clarity Act, 2000 ■ Wanting to have a framework and process in place if Quebec (or

any other province) sought to separate from Canada, Bill C-20 (the Clarity Act) was enacted December 13, 1999.

■ This Act outlined the rules and conditions to be met before the Canadian government enter into negotiations for the secession of any Province

1. It set out the principles and procedures that would require that any referendum question submitted to voters about succession be clear

2. Established that a clear majority of a provinces population is needed for a province to secede

The Clarity Act, 2000 cont…

■ If Quebec holds another referendum in the future regarding separation, no agreement will be negotiated without first establishing that the criteria for clarity have been met