In recent days, some Liberals have chastised Conservatives for what they view as an act of deliberate partisanship by not “celebrating” the 30th anniversary of the Canada Act 1982. That is itself an act of narrow partisanship that does nothing but diminish the significance of marking this important day and learning the important lessons from it. Those who direct criticism at people who choose not to celebrate this anniversary are demonstrating the very intolerant ignorance they claim to abhor.
As I see it, the only people politicizing the Charter anniversary are Liberals, and no one else. Much like the Conservatives have used the military as their stage props, some Liberals use the Charter of Rights as theirs.
Embedded in the Charter are values that include human freedom in all its dimensions, respect for the individual, tolerance of others and their point of view, acceptance, and compromise. The Charter belongs to all Canadians. No one party has a right of ownership, and I find it distasteful that some Liberals claim it as theirs and theirs alone.
It’s not. Many Progressive Conservative and NDP leaders, both federally and provincially, supported repatriation and entrenching the Charter of Rights. In fact, they were absolutely indispensible to it. Just ask Brian Peckford, Richard Hatfield, Bill Davis, Peter Lougheed, Bill Bennett, and Howard Pawley.
Those that took exception to the idea of a codified Charter did so for perfectly legitimate reasons. We have no business being dismissive of their point of view.
They took no issue with the rights and freedoms as expressed in the Charter, but worried that the courts would be able to over-ride the will of the democratically elected Parliament and legislatures. They feared that would lead to the “Americanization” of the Canadian political system and undermine the Westminster model that has served Canada so well. While those were thoughtfully articulated and legitimate concerns, thirty years later, those fears appear to have been unfounded.
For many, particularly in Quebec, patriation was seen as a dark day. Opponents had no objection to the concept of rights and responsibilities; the real issue was the complex gamesmanship that left Quebec Premier Rene Levesque alone.
Whatever one’s political persuasion, the image of an isolated and embarrassed Premier of Quebec was profoundly unsettling for a very large number of Quebecers. That was reflected in the unanimous opposition in the National Assembly.
Some argue that federal MPs from Quebec – mostly all Liberal – voted in favour of the new constitution, thus giving it democratic legitimacy. True enough, to a point. Quebec MNAs were all against. So why do some commentators give more weight to the vote of Quebec’s MPs than their MNAs on this issue?
Another even more potent indicator of Quebecers’ sentiments towards the the patriation project is that the Liberals, the self-described “party of the Charter”, have been a spent force in Quebec since 1984.
“Celebrating” the Charter may fuel more Liberal mythology and make people feel good in downtown Toronto and certain other parts of Canada, but we can be sure there will be no celebratory rallies in Quebec. For many in Quebec, such celebrations are not an opportunity to learn, teach, and build-bridges — the purported objectives — but are just another poke in the eye to Quebec from federal Liberals.
Liberals took great delight in defeating Levesque. A few years later, many Liberals also adamantly opposed the Meech Lake Accord, a valiant if flawed attempt to bring Quebec into the constitutional family “with honour and enthusiasm”. Liberals led the charge to that defeat, premised largely on the argument that all provinces are equal and Quebec should never, ever be recognized as a “distinct society”. Manitoba and Newfoundland rejected the Accord and Quebec’s National Assembly unanimously and emotionally rallied behind their premier, Robert Bourassa. The Bloc Quebecois was created and a few years later, a new, and more radical, separatist government was in power. Then came the 1995 Referendum, which federalists won by the very smallest of margins; Jean Chretien’s Supreme Court Reference, and the Clarity Act soon followed.
But then – out of the blue – the Liberal Party that was so adamantly opposed to the idea of Quebec’s distinctiveness energetically supported the motion presented by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the House of Commons recognizing Quebec as a “nation” within Canada. If that’s not a mind-bender, I don’t know what is.
Columnists like Andrew Coyne are correct in pointing out that citizens of Quebec have benefitted, like citizens of other provinces, from the Charter. Because Rene Levesque did not sign the agreement with his nine provincial counterparts did that make it any less a legitimate and legally enforceable document? No. It has full force and effect for all Canadians.
The Charter is a fact of life and is now deeply embedded in the fabric of our society through our laws and governance. That’s a very good thing. The Canada Act of 1982 marked the very first time in our history that we could amend our foundational governing laws without asking permission of the British Parliament. As a reformer and one that prefers to look forward, that is a much more important component to this story.
Lost in the political posturing marking the anniversary of the Charter is the even more vital conversation that we should be having about our collective future. Through their courage and statesmanship, the leaders of 1982 gave us the tools to complete the great-unfinished business of nation building and unifying this blessed country. Just as they did then, it is up to us to seize the day now.
Original Article
Source: ipolitical
Author: Daniel Veniez
As I see it, the only people politicizing the Charter anniversary are Liberals, and no one else. Much like the Conservatives have used the military as their stage props, some Liberals use the Charter of Rights as theirs.
Embedded in the Charter are values that include human freedom in all its dimensions, respect for the individual, tolerance of others and their point of view, acceptance, and compromise. The Charter belongs to all Canadians. No one party has a right of ownership, and I find it distasteful that some Liberals claim it as theirs and theirs alone.
It’s not. Many Progressive Conservative and NDP leaders, both federally and provincially, supported repatriation and entrenching the Charter of Rights. In fact, they were absolutely indispensible to it. Just ask Brian Peckford, Richard Hatfield, Bill Davis, Peter Lougheed, Bill Bennett, and Howard Pawley.
Those that took exception to the idea of a codified Charter did so for perfectly legitimate reasons. We have no business being dismissive of their point of view.
They took no issue with the rights and freedoms as expressed in the Charter, but worried that the courts would be able to over-ride the will of the democratically elected Parliament and legislatures. They feared that would lead to the “Americanization” of the Canadian political system and undermine the Westminster model that has served Canada so well. While those were thoughtfully articulated and legitimate concerns, thirty years later, those fears appear to have been unfounded.
For many, particularly in Quebec, patriation was seen as a dark day. Opponents had no objection to the concept of rights and responsibilities; the real issue was the complex gamesmanship that left Quebec Premier Rene Levesque alone.
Whatever one’s political persuasion, the image of an isolated and embarrassed Premier of Quebec was profoundly unsettling for a very large number of Quebecers. That was reflected in the unanimous opposition in the National Assembly.
Some argue that federal MPs from Quebec – mostly all Liberal – voted in favour of the new constitution, thus giving it democratic legitimacy. True enough, to a point. Quebec MNAs were all against. So why do some commentators give more weight to the vote of Quebec’s MPs than their MNAs on this issue?
Another even more potent indicator of Quebecers’ sentiments towards the the patriation project is that the Liberals, the self-described “party of the Charter”, have been a spent force in Quebec since 1984.
“Celebrating” the Charter may fuel more Liberal mythology and make people feel good in downtown Toronto and certain other parts of Canada, but we can be sure there will be no celebratory rallies in Quebec. For many in Quebec, such celebrations are not an opportunity to learn, teach, and build-bridges — the purported objectives — but are just another poke in the eye to Quebec from federal Liberals.
Liberals took great delight in defeating Levesque. A few years later, many Liberals also adamantly opposed the Meech Lake Accord, a valiant if flawed attempt to bring Quebec into the constitutional family “with honour and enthusiasm”. Liberals led the charge to that defeat, premised largely on the argument that all provinces are equal and Quebec should never, ever be recognized as a “distinct society”. Manitoba and Newfoundland rejected the Accord and Quebec’s National Assembly unanimously and emotionally rallied behind their premier, Robert Bourassa. The Bloc Quebecois was created and a few years later, a new, and more radical, separatist government was in power. Then came the 1995 Referendum, which federalists won by the very smallest of margins; Jean Chretien’s Supreme Court Reference, and the Clarity Act soon followed.
But then – out of the blue – the Liberal Party that was so adamantly opposed to the idea of Quebec’s distinctiveness energetically supported the motion presented by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the House of Commons recognizing Quebec as a “nation” within Canada. If that’s not a mind-bender, I don’t know what is.
Columnists like Andrew Coyne are correct in pointing out that citizens of Quebec have benefitted, like citizens of other provinces, from the Charter. Because Rene Levesque did not sign the agreement with his nine provincial counterparts did that make it any less a legitimate and legally enforceable document? No. It has full force and effect for all Canadians.
The Charter is a fact of life and is now deeply embedded in the fabric of our society through our laws and governance. That’s a very good thing. The Canada Act of 1982 marked the very first time in our history that we could amend our foundational governing laws without asking permission of the British Parliament. As a reformer and one that prefers to look forward, that is a much more important component to this story.
Lost in the political posturing marking the anniversary of the Charter is the even more vital conversation that we should be having about our collective future. Through their courage and statesmanship, the leaders of 1982 gave us the tools to complete the great-unfinished business of nation building and unifying this blessed country. Just as they did then, it is up to us to seize the day now.
Original Article
Source: ipolitical
Author: Daniel Veniez
No comments:
Post a Comment