Questions to ask yourself:
What were the key changes in the Constitution Act 1982? What did the Meech and Charlottetown Accords offer that was new and significant?
How did our new Constitution change things in Canada? Was it a people's constitution? What role did the media play? Is Canada a Federation of Nations? What does the word 'distinct' mean to you, to Québec, and to other groups? What are our Canadian values!?
Learning Intentions:
To describe the changes in the Constitution Act 1982.
To describe the elements of the Meech Lake Accord.
To describe the elements of the Charlottetown Accord.
To compare and contrast the two Accords.
To judge the effects of constitutional negotiations and the 2nd referendum on sovereignty
Constitutional Changes of the early 1980s
For more on the causes and evolution of the Constitution of 1982 and the early Crises of the 1980s ➦
For more on the causes and evolution of the Constitution of 1982 and the early Crises of the 1980s ➦
In the 70s and 80s, the Federal government in Ottawa saw the constitutional process as a way for Canada to acquire full sovereignty and to be independant from Britain. And since the Federal government saw itself as the only "national" government it also "felt it was necessary to centralize powers even more" to further solidify our sovereignty.
As Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau "assembled a group of constitutional advisers. He also drafted a set of federal demands for new, centralized powers over the economy. He wanted what he called a 'people’s package' added to the Constitution; it would include a new Charter of Rights and Freedoms." However, he also recognized the importance of getting Provincial support to patriate the Constitution.
(Text source: From a longer text on the Constitutional Crises of the 1980s page, by PR and from various sources.)
Canada Act of 1982: Of control and rights
March 29, 1982. This was the day that the Canada Act replaced the BNA Act as our constitution. Most importantly, this act created a new amending formula and removed the British Parliament’s amendment powers. It reestablish and defined powers and the way some powers can be changed by the Federal government, while others needed a two-thirds majority of Provinces to be changed.
The Canada Act also affirmed many existing common-law rights, in the form of an official Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter not only clarified and codified rights, but it "prevents the federal, provincial and territorial governments from infringing on Canadian rights and freedoms." Similarly, it protects people "against the state". This serves to protect minorities, and even new immigrants, from decisions of even "parliamentary majorities", giving the law and its interpretation by judges the final say as concerns human rights like, for example, freedom of expression, the right to work and live, the right to gender equality.
Note that certain rights pertained to larger groups. For example, the rights of Indigenous peoples are expressed there. The right to use Canada's official languages is included. And related to this, rights are given to French and English minorities to an education in their province.
(Text source: Paul Rombough from various sources in our main document collection.)
Canada Act of 1982: Of control and human (and group) rights
March 29, 1982. This was the day that the Canada Act replaced the BNA Act as our constitution. Most importantly, this act created a new amending formula and removed the British Parliament’s amendment powers. It reestablish and defined powers and the way some powers can be changed by the Federal government, while others needed a two-thirds majority of Provinces to be changed.
The Canada Act also affirmed many existing common-law rights, in the form of an official Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter not only clarified and codified rights, but it "prevents the federal, provincial and territorial governments from infringing on Canadian rights and freedoms." Similarly, it protects people "against the state". This serves to protect minorities, and even new immigrants, from decisions of even "parliamentary majorities", giving the law and its interpretation by judges the final say as concerns human rights like, for example, freedom of expression, the right to work and live, the right to gender equality.
Note that certain rights pertained to larger groups. For example, the rights of Indigenous peoples are expressed there. The right to use Canada's official languages is included. And related to this, rights are given to French and English minorities to an education in their province.
(Text source: Paul Rombough from various sources in our main document collection, especially thecanadianencyclopedia.ca )
Indigenous Rights: Section 35 and plans to meet leaders
The second and fourth "parts" of the Constitution have to do with Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Rights, then referred to more commonly as Aboriginal* Rights to include First Nations, Inuit and Métis. Indigenous groups fought to have their rights included in this new document, which in part two "recognizes and affirms ... existing aboriginal and treaty rights."
Part four of the Constitution basically obligued the Prime Minister and Premiers to meet ot discuss the rights of Indigenous peoples.
The First Ministers’ Conference of March 1983 led eventually to the Constitution Amendment Proclamation of1983, which changed section 35 to include land claims agreements as treaties. In other words all Indigenous peoples would have the same rights as other Canadians to make the decisions about their lives and land.
There were three more conferences (1984, 1985, 1987). However the four national Aboriginal organizations and the Prime Ministers and Premiers could not come to an agreement on the meaning of section 35. The main issue was whether people have the right to govern themselves. Some people though it an inherent right, while others saw it as something granted by the Crown (i.e. Federal) governments. In the end, section 35 was seen more of as an “empty box” that needed to be filled up with agreements still to be negotiated.
Note that "The term Aboriginal was introduced in the 1982 Canadian Constitution by your federal government as an ‘umbrella’ term to include First Nations, Inuit and Métis." Source
(Text source: Paul Rombough from various sources in our main document collection, especially )
View video: Dancing Around the Table, Part One by Maurice Bulbulian - NFB
See also infographic on Section 35 here ... by FPIC.INFO
In Québec: Aboriginal Peoples of Quebec Task Force ... to provide a forum ... to formulate constitutional positions, and to put forward these positions to the governments of Canada and Quebec.
Photo by Marie-Anne Boulay and text above from Taqralik magazine via banq.qc.ca
Of Equalization Payments and Populations: Alberta was unhappy, NFLD still "gets squat"
Comparable economies and wealth between provinces? Well, at least to ensure comparable "levels of public service and taxation". This was a goal of the Federal Government's equalization payment policy since the 1950s. The Constitution of 1982 formally commited the Government of Canada to the principle of making equalization payments.
It sounds like a great idea, but there were always provinces that were unhappy about the arrangement. Alberta resented getting less when was giving so much.
Even recently, in the “Fighting for Fairness” campaign, transfer amounts were a hot topic in the Newfoundland and Labrador PC Party during the election there. [...] “Quebec gets $13 billion a year and we get squat” said the PC Leader Ches Crosbie in a campaign ad.
(Text source: Paul Rombough from various sources in our main document collection, especially )
Trudeau gives gifts to everyone, except Alberta, Duncan Macpherson TORONTO STAR collections.musee-mccord-stewart.ca “In Copyright – Non-commercial Use Permitted”
"Please elect my dad. Please."
PC Leader Ches Crosbie in a campaign ad
Discussion: But does NFLD really "get squat"? Do Québeckers actually get more?
"Figure 10 shows the distribution of total equalization transfers among the provinces at two points in time. QC (royal blue) has always received more than 50 percent of the total transfers. AB has never received equalization transfers (no neon green). Until 2009 that was also true for ON (red) [...]
"A second view of the size of equalization payments going to the provinces is in per capita terms, shown in Figure 11. The size of these transfers is significant for some provinces, up to $2,000 per capita for PE and NL, in turquoise blue and fuchsia pink respectively. [...] QC (in royal blue), though it accounts for over half of total equalization transfers, in per capita terms is relatively low ranging from $750 to $1,000 per capita."
Text and image source: Regional Inequality and Decentralized Governance: Canada’s Provinces, by M. Rose Olfert, p. 213-214
Images available here as Figure 10 and Figure 11 under license Creative Commons BY
Under construction:
This page is under construction. Overview texts are being written, based on our main document collection for these topics here
Image source: National Service of the RÉCIT, Social Universe domain. Licence: Creative Commons (BY-NC-SA). https://documents.recitus.qc.ca/
Image source: National Service of the RÉCIT, Social Universe domain. Licence: Creative Commons (BY-NC-SA). https://documents.recitus.qc.ca/
Document collection:
Our main document collection is already available here. Feel free to browse resources we have compiled so far!
Padlet of Curated sites:
For convenience, we are also creating a Padlet of the sites we are visiting below. Text sources are at left, while media sources are at right. Open here in very large window to view all the resources.