So here's a thing about the other side. When it suits them, the Constitution is a sacred document that must be honoured. An Alberta Sovereignty Act? Oh, that would be unconstitutional. Fool idea..On the other hand when it suits them, you can do what you like with a constitution. It's a 'living tree,' don't you see? It is infinitely adaptable to the times. Thus wrote Alberta's own born-and-bred Chief Justice Beverley McLachlan who in a standup paper some years ago, glowed that the Constitution not only can evolve to better reflect the changing Canadian consensus, but should. Change the definition of marriage? Sure, if that's what the people want. .How about assisted suicide? Oh, not that. Supreme Court ruling 1993..Or actually, yes. Supreme Court ruling 2015. When the constitution is a living tree, Canada's courts can turn societal consensus on a dime, and turn over established truths in less than a generation..How that consensus is determined is another discussion, of course. On a number of matters, had Canada's Supreme Court justices taken their ideas only from the CBC, the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail, they could hardly have done differently than what they did..'The 'other side' therefore — we're talking about Canada's progressives — likes to have it both ways. Any progressive cause merits the sympathetic approval of the courts. Anything they don't like — such as Danielle Smith's modest Sovereignty proposal — well, now they become 'originalists.' .There is of course much to be said for the 'originalist' position of setting up rules and sticking with them. It's no bad thing that people know when to expect elections for example, and what to expect when the results are known. Though by no means undisputed — America's progressives hate the rights to free speech and to bear arms — originalism is still the default American position on their centuries-old constitution..The golden mean of this discussion lies somewhere between the two extremes of no change ever, and a constitutional tree so overgrown that it is blocking the light..Canada's originalists — when they choose to be so — fail to acknowledge that things change. That is, any constitution is an agreement between people representing interests as they were at the time of signing the parchment. Interests that is, that are sufficiently significant that they must be taken into account. That is certainly so of Canada, where the 1867 agreement was the lowest common denominator that could be accepted by the four original signatory provinces. To get the deal, the Fathers of Confederation gave Quebec a guaranteed 24 senators in perpetuity for example. Later when PEI was admitted, it was guaranteed four seats in the House of Commons. That was PEI's price, lest it be overwhelmed by the larger provinces. Today, PEI's population could be comfortably contained in SE Calgary. Unfair? Obviously. Necessary at the time to secure an agreement? Yes. Hammering out a deal in the backrooms is how constitutions are done..But sometimes the deal is so overtaken by the decades, that things need to change. The great conservative philosopher Edmund Burke made that case 200 years ago. Change yes. But for the sake of peace, do it slowly..This favours Ms. Smith's proposal. Things have changed: Nobody really believes that a constitutional conference in Canada held today to admit a rising Alberta that had somehow missed the 1905 opportunity, would seriously propose the deal we have now. No Alberta premier would today agree to be handing over $630 billion over 60 years. Nor would that premier negotiate a deal that would let a hostile federal government crush Alberta's core industries at will — first energy and apparently, farming next..Yet, as fully paid-up members of Canada, that's where Albertans find ourselves 117 years after joining Confederation. And unlike some of the peculiar accommodations made in the 19th century — if PEI went down to one seat, so what? — this matters. It matters to Albertans for obvious reasons and it matters to the rest of Canada which has done very well off this province for decades. .Those who don't fancy a Danielle Smith premiership will certainly say her proposed Sovereignty Act is unconstitutional. Of course they would..But, Ms. Smith says her Sovereignty law "would affirm the authority of the provincial legislature to refuse provincial enforcement of specific federal laws or policies that violate the jurisdictional rights of Alberta." She says her objective is to assert Alberta’s Constitutional Rights within Canada..Alberta is big enough and important enough to demand its price... Which is an equalization review and an end to predatory federalism..That's what Quebec does: It seems to work pretty well for Quebeckers. .If 'the other side' has a better idea, we've yet to hear it. Or maybe they just like things the way they are. .Either way, if Canada's Constitution is a living tree, it's time it cast its friendly shade on Alberta.
So here's a thing about the other side. When it suits them, the Constitution is a sacred document that must be honoured. An Alberta Sovereignty Act? Oh, that would be unconstitutional. Fool idea..On the other hand when it suits them, you can do what you like with a constitution. It's a 'living tree,' don't you see? It is infinitely adaptable to the times. Thus wrote Alberta's own born-and-bred Chief Justice Beverley McLachlan who in a standup paper some years ago, glowed that the Constitution not only can evolve to better reflect the changing Canadian consensus, but should. Change the definition of marriage? Sure, if that's what the people want. .How about assisted suicide? Oh, not that. Supreme Court ruling 1993..Or actually, yes. Supreme Court ruling 2015. When the constitution is a living tree, Canada's courts can turn societal consensus on a dime, and turn over established truths in less than a generation..How that consensus is determined is another discussion, of course. On a number of matters, had Canada's Supreme Court justices taken their ideas only from the CBC, the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail, they could hardly have done differently than what they did..'The 'other side' therefore — we're talking about Canada's progressives — likes to have it both ways. Any progressive cause merits the sympathetic approval of the courts. Anything they don't like — such as Danielle Smith's modest Sovereignty proposal — well, now they become 'originalists.' .There is of course much to be said for the 'originalist' position of setting up rules and sticking with them. It's no bad thing that people know when to expect elections for example, and what to expect when the results are known. Though by no means undisputed — America's progressives hate the rights to free speech and to bear arms — originalism is still the default American position on their centuries-old constitution..The golden mean of this discussion lies somewhere between the two extremes of no change ever, and a constitutional tree so overgrown that it is blocking the light..Canada's originalists — when they choose to be so — fail to acknowledge that things change. That is, any constitution is an agreement between people representing interests as they were at the time of signing the parchment. Interests that is, that are sufficiently significant that they must be taken into account. That is certainly so of Canada, where the 1867 agreement was the lowest common denominator that could be accepted by the four original signatory provinces. To get the deal, the Fathers of Confederation gave Quebec a guaranteed 24 senators in perpetuity for example. Later when PEI was admitted, it was guaranteed four seats in the House of Commons. That was PEI's price, lest it be overwhelmed by the larger provinces. Today, PEI's population could be comfortably contained in SE Calgary. Unfair? Obviously. Necessary at the time to secure an agreement? Yes. Hammering out a deal in the backrooms is how constitutions are done..But sometimes the deal is so overtaken by the decades, that things need to change. The great conservative philosopher Edmund Burke made that case 200 years ago. Change yes. But for the sake of peace, do it slowly..This favours Ms. Smith's proposal. Things have changed: Nobody really believes that a constitutional conference in Canada held today to admit a rising Alberta that had somehow missed the 1905 opportunity, would seriously propose the deal we have now. No Alberta premier would today agree to be handing over $630 billion over 60 years. Nor would that premier negotiate a deal that would let a hostile federal government crush Alberta's core industries at will — first energy and apparently, farming next..Yet, as fully paid-up members of Canada, that's where Albertans find ourselves 117 years after joining Confederation. And unlike some of the peculiar accommodations made in the 19th century — if PEI went down to one seat, so what? — this matters. It matters to Albertans for obvious reasons and it matters to the rest of Canada which has done very well off this province for decades. .Those who don't fancy a Danielle Smith premiership will certainly say her proposed Sovereignty Act is unconstitutional. Of course they would..But, Ms. Smith says her Sovereignty law "would affirm the authority of the provincial legislature to refuse provincial enforcement of specific federal laws or policies that violate the jurisdictional rights of Alberta." She says her objective is to assert Alberta’s Constitutional Rights within Canada..Alberta is big enough and important enough to demand its price... Which is an equalization review and an end to predatory federalism..That's what Quebec does: It seems to work pretty well for Quebeckers. .If 'the other side' has a better idea, we've yet to hear it. Or maybe they just like things the way they are. .Either way, if Canada's Constitution is a living tree, it's time it cast its friendly shade on Alberta.
