More than 25 years after the 1995 referendum on sovereignty and on the eve of the 40and anniversary of the patriation of the Constitution, it can be easy to forget that, from the early 1960s to the late 1990s, debating fundamental laws in Canada had almost become a national sport. The end of these debates and the major conferences, which at the time were even televised (and watched!), could suggest that Quebecers and the rest of Canadians have finally made peace with their Constitution.
Perhaps we have reached a national maturity that now allows us to debate pan-Canadian issues without questioning the nature of the country or its very existence. Or maybe we simply agreed to turn the page on this stormy subject, seeing that we would never settle anything. After all, there’s a difference between solving a problem and ignoring it.
The latest annual survey of Confederation Tomorrow, an annual survey of public opinion in Canada on issues related to federation, offers some answers.
Among other things, it shows that almost everyone has a favorable opinion of at least one part of the Constitution: the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A large majority of Canadians, young and old, men and women, rich and poor, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, believe that the Charter has been a good thing for the country. The support is so broad that it is perhaps the only question of a political nature to command the approval of both Quebec solidaire voters and supporters of the United Conservative Party in Alberta.
But does reopening the Constitution to discuss the place of Quebec create as much consensus? The lesson that politicians across the country seem to have learned after the failure of constitutional reforms is that we are doomed to break our teeth. Philippe Couillard was the last to attempt to address the subject in 2017 by presenting his white paper on the future of Quebec in Canada. The ink on the page was not even dry when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau offered his response: “We will not reopen the Constitution. »
Is this a reaction that corresponds to a general disinterest of the public in relation to these questions? Yes and no. Our poll asked Canadians if they would like to relaunch constitutional negotiations with the aim of settling six different subjects: the Senate, the monarchy, the status of Quebec, the powers of the provinces, equalization and the rights of aboriginal peoples. A majority would prefer that we do not open the Constitution to advance these issues. But for each subject – the rights of indigenous peoples and the monarchy coming first – about a third of Canadians want to relaunch constitutional negotiations.
Understandably, support for reopening the Constitution is higher among certain groups and communities on particular topics. About one out of two Quebecers wants to reopen the Constitution to settle the question of the monarchy, roughly the same proportion of Albertans want to do the same for equalization and the same proportion of Aboriginal people want to reopen it for the rights of their peoples.
This seems to be the crux of the matter when it comes to constitutional changes in the country: many people want change, but each part of the country has its own demands. Even if we agree to discuss, one wonders how likely it is that we can agree on the topic of discussion.
But we may not be as divided as it seems. Although nearly three in ten Canadians prefer that the Constitution not be opened for any reason, those who are ready to reopen it seem inclined to listen to the complaints of others. Quebecers and Albertans who say they are ready to talk about Quebec’s place are also often open to a discussion on equalization. And most non-Indigenous people who want to reopen the Constitution to talk about the Senate or the power of the provinces also want new discussions on the rights of Indigenous peoples.
The poll sends us a clear message: it is wrong to claim that no one in the country has an appetite for constitutional issues. Important communities want some changes to the way we govern ourselves. Pretending otherwise may seem like a good short-term political strategy, when we are dealing with more serious crises. But ignoring these tendencies prevents us from preparing for debates that risk coming back to impose themselves.
Generational change
Some might wonder whether this support for constitutional changes is especially present among older generations, those still nostalgic for the debates of the past. Does anyone born after 1982 care?
There are indeed signs that younger people are much less interested in these issues, and nowhere is this clearer than in Quebec. Young French-speaking Quebecers are much less inclined than their older fellow citizens to want to reopen the Constitution to settle the question of the status of Quebec or the division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces. And they are also much less likely to attach importance to Quebec signing the Constitution.
Young Quebecers today are also of a different opinion than those of the patriation era: they were much more concerned about the constitutional status of Quebec. The data also show that the Quebec government was then supported by most young people in its opposition to the new constitution proposed by Ottawa.
The derogation clause
Governments’ periodic use of Section 33 of the Constitution, the clause allowing legislatures to keep in place legislation that would otherwise violate the Charter, brings constitutional issues back to the headlines from time to time. Its use by the Government of Quebec in the case of Bill 21 is the most recent example.
Like other Canadians, Quebeckers are generally comfortable with the idea that the Supreme Court has the last word when it comes to ruling on a law that violates the Charter. But differences appear when it comes to evaluating the use of the derogation clause. Outside Quebec, the weight of public opinion weighs against those who would be tempted to use it. Quebecers are more divided. That said, Quebec and the rest of Canada both have a significant number of undecided voters, indicating that public opinion could lean one way or the other.
The derogation clause seems to offer a new example of generational differences. French-speaking Quebecers over the age of 55 tend to see it in a better light (48% of them) while this is not the case for those aged 18 to 34, of whom only 18% would accept that we use it to derogate from the Charter. But several Quebec political leaders prefer to ignore this divide and speak of a consensus on the issue.
Looking at the opinions of young respondents, we can see that many millennials and members of Generation Z could be tempted to answer: OK boomer. Young people obviously have their own opinion on these issues, and this difference could be enough to keep the constitutional debates alive. But even if we perceive a gap between the generations, the survey reassures us by showing that geographic distance does not make Canadians deaf to the issues that affect their fellow citizens elsewhere in the country.