150 years of life together
Signature of the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution by Queen Elizabeth II, Credit: Radio-Canada
How to explain the cleft that was created in the Canadian unity in 1982?
To try to understand it, let us first go back to the time of the Constitution Act in 1867. In deciding not to form a republic, the Fathers of Confederation did not please everyone; they acted even against the cross currents of the dominant trend of the times.
In fact, the Republican movement that was propelled by the French Revolution, brought down one political regime after the other, to implement a concept of State that was stripped of reference to God, breaking with a longstanding tradition of Christian governance. Many monarchies had become the target of this movement and were transformed into "republics".
In Canada, the English Conquest of 1760 had a decisive impact on the political choices made in 1867, and this in two ways:
a) First, the Conquest played against the secular republican movement by subtracting New France from the authority of the Kingdom of France, and thus preserved it from a necessary passage to the Republic with the Kingdom of France in 1789;
b) then, by subjecting Canada to the Kingdom of England, the conquest linked the cause of French Canadians that to that of English Canadians and Loyalists against the annexationist project of the Republic of the United States.
So when Samuel Leonard Tilley, from New Brunswick, was inspired by Psalm 72 to propose to the other delegates from the provinces a name and a motto for the country to be born, the idea of "Dominion of Canada" imposed itself upon their minds. This name indicates that the notion of State that the founders of Canada had was not a secular one, and implicitly acknowledged the dominion of God on earth, as referred to in this psalm.
However, since 1867, various groups in Canada have advocated a republican and secular vision of the country; there has always been a more or less latent fight between supporters and opponents on the place of God within the State. Among these groups, some advocated a "Canadian" vision of the secular State; others professed the same ideas but applied across the province of Quebec, seen as an independent entity from the rest of Canada.
This perception of Quebec as being more or less detached from the Canadian entity emerged on the occasion of the Estates General of French Canada in 1967, exactly one hundred years after Confederation. The event, which was intended to rally the French Canadian nation, took a rather different turn for that of independence and resulted for many, in the desire to change the province into a republic, fundamentally opposed to the initial Canadian project.
The Canadian vision of the secular State was in turn, driven primarily by liberal movements, defenders of individual rights. They wanted a united Canada, but wanted to redefine its political structure based on a secular vision of the State.
In 1982, the liberal secularizing current had in its ranks a noteworthy figure: Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada. He wanted to end the guardianship of the UK over the country; To do this, he had to repatriate the Constitution that was still a law passed by the British Parliament in 1867.
Pierre Trudeau wanted to take advantage of the repatriation of the Constitution to make changes to bring it in line with his vision of the country. He counted on introducing the concept of multiculturalism, which would deny the status of founding people to Francophone Canadians, considering them as a Canadian culture among others. He wanted to insert a bill of rights, which would give the courts the power to invalidate laws passed by the provinces on the basis of their exclusive competencies. In addition, he proposed a new formula for constitutional amendments, which would lead to litigation.
This project, one suspects well, was not acceptable to the Province of Quebec who had refused to sign it. This refusal did not prevent the new Constitution from being adopted and, although not being a signatory, the province saw itself submitted to it.
This constitutional discord strengthened both the Canadian and Quebec republican movements, crystallizing their divergent political paths.
Despite the changes in 1982, the Canadian Constitution did, however, retain its reference to God, in part due to pressure from many members of the same government. So how, for supporters of secularism, can it be officially asserted, since nowhere in our constitutional development is the secular nature of the State affirmed? By the courts.
Indeed, the recent changes to the Constitution open perspectives for new interpretations to them. Thus, since 1982, judges have shaped, on a piece by piece basis, a de facto recognition of the principle of the secularity of State.
Will the courts give precedence to the unofficial principle of the secularity of the State over the supremacy of God, going against the Country's longstanding tradition? Several recent rulings allow us to question this.
For example, let us recall the judgment of the Supreme Court last April 15 on the dispute opposing the Quebec Secular Movement to the City of Saguenay, where the city council recited a prayer before its meetings. The Court concluded that this prayer violated the provisions of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms and infringed upon the principle of religious neutrality of the State.
An interpretation that seems far from the spirit of the founders of Canada. Several voices did, in fact, challenge the judgment. Among them, the Premier of Saskatchewan, Brad Wall, whose legislature has, for generations, said a prayer before each meeting. "If any group of people need that help it's elected people, politicians of the country." A Statement that, by its correctness, shows the crucial challenge that a reference to God in the Constitution, represents.
Marc Paré
