Amendments to the Constitution of Canada

History

Before 1982, modifying the Constitution of Canada primarily meant amending the British North America Act, 1867. Unlike most constitutions, however, this Act had no amending formula: instead changes were enacted through Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (or "Imperial Parliament") called the British North America Acts.

Other Commonwealth countries had taken over the authority for constitutional amendment after the Statute of Westminster 1931, but at the time, Canada decided to allow the Parliament of the United Kingdom to "temporarily" retain the power. With the Constitution Act 1982, Canada took over the authority to amend its own constitution, achieving full sovereignity.

Between 1931 and 1982, the federal government, on behalf of the Canadian House of Commons and the Senate, would issue an address to the British government requesting an amendment. The request would include a resolution containing the desired amendments. These in turn, were always passed by the British Parliament, with little or no debate.

Amendment formula

As part of the patriation of the Constitution in 1982 an amending formula was adopted in sections 38 to 49 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Most amendments can be passed only if identical resolutions are adopted by the House of Commons, the Senate and two thirds or more of the provincial legislative assemblies representing at least 50 percent of the national population. This formula, which is outlined in section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is officially referred to as the "general amendment procedure" and is known colloquially as the "7+50 formula". The following matters are reserved to the s. 38 procedure, by virtue of s. 42:

If a constitutional amendment affects only one province, however, only the assent of Parliament and of that province's legislature is required. Seven of the eleven amendments passed so far have been of this nature, four being passed by and for Newfoundland and Labrador, one for New Brunswick, one for Prince Edward Island and one for Quebec. This formula is contained in section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

There are some parts of the Constitution that can be modified only with the unanimous consent of all the provinces plus the two Houses of Parliament. This formula is contained in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and is known as the "unanimity formula". It is reserved for the following matters:

No specific mention is made in the procedure for amendments affecting what falls within the federal/provincial distribution of powers. Therefore, they can be dealt with generally under s. 38, or with respect to specific provinces under s. 43. However, a s. 38 amendment in that regard will not apply to a province that has passed a resolution of dissent from it, and s. 40 states that a s. 38 amendment that transfers provincial jurisdiction over an education or cultural matter to Parliament must be accompanied by reasonable compensation by Canada to the provinces.

Supreme Court of Canada in the amending formula

There has been a debate among legal scholars as to whether the Supreme Court of Canada is entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada was not created by the constitution, rather the power to create a "Court of General Appeal for Canada" was granted to Parliament by s. 101 of the British North America Act, 1867. Parliament proceeded to create the Supreme Court of Canada under the authority of s. 101 in 1875 by passing the Supreme Court Act, which was an ordinary piece of legislation with no constitutional significance at the time.

The Supreme Court of Canada was mentioned for the first time in a constitutional document by the Constitution Act, 1982. The Supreme Court is referred to twice. First, s. 41 lists several amendments to the Constitution of Canada requiring unanimous consent. S. 41(d) includes the "composition of the Supreme Court of Canada" in this list. Second, s. 42(1) lists several amendments to the Constitution of Canada requiring the general amendment procedure. S. 42(1)(d) includes "subject to s. 41(d), the Supreme Court of Canada" in this list. Sections 41 and 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982, thus appear to include the Supreme Court of Canada in the Constitution of Canada. However, this conclusion is questionable because the "Constitution of Canada" is expressly defined in s. 52(2) as a set of thirty instruments that does not include the Supreme Court Act. Some scholars, including Peter Hogg, have suggested that the references to the Supreme Court of Canada in sections 41 and 42 are ineffective. They argue that these references are "anticipatory" and will become effective only if Parliament adds the Supreme Court Act to the list in s. 52(2). Other scholars, including Professor Cheffins, have argued that the Supreme Court Act is implied as entrenched into s. 52(2) because of sections 41 and 42. S. 52(2) uses the words "includes ..." to introduce the list of thirty instruments, suggesting that the provision does not contain an exhaustive list. The Supreme Court itself has confirmed in New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319 that s. 52(2) is not exhaustive, but has not yet ruled on whether the Supreme Court Act is included in the Constitution of Canada.

This issue has implications for judicial selection in Canada. S. 4(2) of the Supreme Court Act specifies that the Governor in Council (federal cabinet) has the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has announced that a new reformed selection process will be developed. If the new process binds the federal government, it will necessarily involve an amendment to s. 4(2) of the Supreme Court Act. If the Act is "constitutionalized," this would require a constitutional amendment under the general amendment procedure, a significant hurdle requiring provincial cooperation. If the Act is not constitutionalized, Parliament can simply amend the legislation by a majority vote.

This issue arose again in connection with Private Member's Bill C-232, passed by the House of Commons in March 2010. The Bill would have amended the Supreme Court Act to require all future appointees to the court to be able to understand both French and English without the assistance of an interpreter. If the Supreme Court Act is considered part of the Constitution, this change would require a constitutional amendment. Bill C-323 died on the table when Parliament was dissolved for the May election.

In Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6 2014 SCC 21, a majority of the Supreme Court rule that clauses concerning the appointment of Justices from Quebec are entrenched.

Debate

Amending the Canadian Constitution is a topic of great debate in Canada. There seems to be general agreement among provincial governments that some parts of the Constitution need to be amended to deal with long-standing demands from many provinces. There are demands by western provinces for a greater share of power at the federal level, and demands from Quebec for greater protection for its status as a "distinct society". Quebec, in particular, has not formally agreed to the Constitution Act, 1982, although this is symbolic and does not affect the legal applicability of the Act.

Nevertheless, agreement on details of amendments has been elusive. Further complicating attempts to amend the Constitution is the complexity of the procedure for doing so, which in most cases requires approval from both the federal parliament and two-thirds of the provincial governments representing at least 50 per cent of the population, and in some cases require the approval of the federal government and all ten provincial governments.

The 1987 Meech Lake Accord, a package of constitutional amendments, intended to address Quebec's objections to the Constitution Act, 1982, failed in 1990 when it was not ratified by all ten provincial governments. The last attempt at a comprehensive package of constitutional amendments was the Charlottetown Accord, which arose out of the failure of the Meech Lake Accord. The Charlottetown Accord was defeated in a national referendum in 1992.

There have been several relatively minor amendments to the Constitution since it was patriated in 1982 including amendments dealing with provincial schooling in Newfoundland and Quebec and the changing of the name of Newfoundland to Newfoundland and Labrador (see below).

Although the amending formula has not been formally altered, the Canadian government under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien after the 1995 Quebec referendum recognized regional vetoes over proposed amendments, held by the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, and by the regions the Prairies (Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) and the Atlantic (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island).

Pre-1982 amendments to the Constitution

In addition to the amendments listed in the following table, many important changes were made to the constitutional structure of Canada by adding entire extra documents to the Constitution. These include orders that added provinces to Canada, such as the British Columbia Terms of Union and documents that altered the structure of the government of Canada, such as the Parliament of Canada Act, 1875. For a complete list of documents added to the Constitution before 1982, see List of Canadian constitutional documents.

Post-1982 amendments to the Constitution

Amending the Constitution has been a topic of much debate in contemporary Canada, and the two most comprehensive attempts to revise the document have both been defeated. There have, however, been eleven minor amendments to the Constitution since it was patriated in 1982. Most of these amendments have been limited in scope, dealing only with matters affecting specific provinces.

Post-1982 failed attempts

Attempts to enact major amendments:

Temporary alternative to amendment

Various provisions of the Canadian Constitution are subject to the notwithstanding clause, which is Section Thirty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This section authorizes governments to temporarily override the rights and freedoms in sections 2 and 7–15 for up to five years, subject to renewal. The Canadian federal government has never invoked it, although provincial governments have done so.

The notwithstanding clause was invoked routinely by the province of Quebec (which did not support the enactment of the Charter but is subject to it nonetheless). The provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta have also invoked the notwithstanding clause, to end a strike and to protect an exclusively heterosexual definition of marriage, respectively. (Note that Alberta's use of the notwithstanding clause is of no force or effect, since the definition of marriage is federal not provincial jurisdiction.) The territory of Yukon also passed legislation once that invoked the notwithstanding clause, but the legislation was never proclaimed in force.