Canadian Constitutional Law

On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the  Charter, I offer some skeptical thoughts on the success of the Charter as an instrument of nation-building, in Bills of Rights as Instruments of Nation-Building in Multinational States: The Canadian Charter and Quebec Nationalism, posted on SSRN.  Here is the abstract (after the break):

Robert Fulford writes a complex piece in this morning’s newspaper ["Modernism isn't written in stone", National Post, Saturday, August 25, 2007, p. A23], with which I both agree and disagree. Fulford, in his usual concise way, does three things at once. First, he posits the separation of religion and government as essential to the development of modern democracies, citing the contest between Islamists and secular nationalists as central to determining the political course of Middle Eastern societies. Next, he states that although state-imposed religion is always pre-modern, contemporary democracies can and do differ on their particular approach to the subject and that not all adhere to the model of strict separation. Finally, he states that Ontario’s public support for a Roman Catholic separate school system is in the tradition of democracies giving a small nod to religious heritage without undermining their essential liberal structure.

By visiting scholar Adam Dodek.

One way to analyze the Ontario election results is in terms of a decisive rejection of constitutional change by Ontarians.

Ontarians generally want their premiers and their governments to focus on the business of governing rather than on constitutional change.  Premier David Peterson was punished at the polls in 1990 in part for focussing on Meech Lake and Canadian unity and Premier Bob Rae often seemed more interested in constitutional issues like Charlottetown than the more mundane issues that capture the Tim Horton's crowd.  Somehow John Tory fell into a similar trap by daring even to raise the issue of funding for faith-based schools.  After the Supreme Court of Canada's 1996 Adler decision, the issue of funding for non-Catholic faith-based schools was transferred from the judicial to the political realm.  Most politicians knew well enough that religion and politics make for an incediary mix (see Bill Davis' extension of funding for Catholic schools in 1984 and Premier McGuinty's experience with Sharia law from 2004 and 2005) and were content to let the issue lie dormant.  Ultimately, Tory was unable to foresee let alone control the firestorm that he had sparked and he was punished at the polls as a result.

co-authored by Adam Dodek and Lorne Sossin

This commentary was first published on the Globe and Mail website on November 23, 2007.

Why should Canadians care about judicial independence? For one, history shows that a strong independent judiciary can be a bulwark against tyranny. Often, the first thing that an aspiring dictator does is attempt to neutralize the independence and effectiveness of the judiciary through harassment or corruption. Robert Mugabe's success to this effect in Zimbabwe is an unfortunate recent case study in the demise of judicial independence and its impact on society. Similarly, in Pakistan, where a stacked Supreme Court ruled yesterday to clear General Pervez Musharraf's path to re-election, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and other members of the court had been confined to house arrest.

In Canada, we have been fortunate to have escaped such upheavals. However, we often look to the independence of the judiciary to resolve some of the most divisive and highest-profile issues of the day — through commissions of inquiry, invariably headed by a judge. We need only think of Gomery, Goudge, Arar, Walkerton, Air-India and now, of course, the Mulroney inquiry. In Canada, judicial independence is the collective constitutional capital that we frequently draw against to help bail us out of messy problems; we should not take it for granted.