WI: Canada Act 1982 fails to pass`

Wikipedia said:
The Canada Act 1982 (1982 c. 11) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that was passed at the request of the Canadian federal government to "patriate" Canada's constitution, ending the necessity for the country to request certain types of amendment to the Constitution of Canada to be made by the British parliament. The Act also formally ended the "request and consent" provisions of the Statute of Westminster 1931 in relation to Canada, whereby the British parliament had a general power to pass laws extending to Canada at its own request.

The act wasn't passed without opposition

Wikipedia said:
In the UK, forty-four Members of Parliament voted against the Act, including 24 Tory and 16 Labour MP's, citing concerns over Canada's past mistreatment of Quebec and Aboriginal peoples (as recalled with frustration by Jean Chrétien in his memoirs Straight from the Heart); overall there was little opposition from the British government to passing the Act.[citation needed] However, new research into documents of the Thatcher government indicate that Britain had serious concerns about the inclusion of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms within the Canada Act. Part of this concern stemmed from letters of protest the British received about it from provincial actors, but also because the Charter undermined the principle of parliamentary supremacy, which until that time had always been a core feature of every government practising the Westminster system.[11]

So what if opposition was stronger, just strong enough for the bill to fail.

Unilateral declaration of independence for Canada? Republicanism?
 
My guess would be the MPs who voted against it did so for symbolic purposes, knowing that they were in the definite minority. I can't imagine any Member who is not an absolute lunatic thinking that it would be good for the UK to over-rule the wishes of another sovereign country. (And yes, I realize Canada wasn't constitutionally sovereign at the time, but, still, de facto...)

The only thing that MIGHT prevent the burning of the High Commissioners residence in Ottawa would be the not-insignificant oppositon to the Charter among right-wingers and provincial-rights enthusiasts. But even then, once it became apparent that the cost of stopping patriation of the Constitution was submission to the will of the UK Parliament, you'd see public opinion swing pretty decidedly over to Trudeau's side.

My dad was a pretty fierce opponent of the Charter("too many rights for minorities" etc), but even he thought that bringing the Constitution home(minus the Charter) was a good thing. I'm pretty sure he'd have hit the roof if Westminster had vetoed the Canadian government.

TL/DR: Highly doubtful that the UK would actually stop repatriation, and if they did, Canadians would go severely apeshit.
 
Last edited:
Oh, and for the specifics...

Unilateral declaration of independence for Canada? Republicanism?

Maybe not. But British reps would be getting some pretty cold stares at whatever international meetings they attended, and eventually the diplomatic pressure would be too much to bear. Canada under Trudeau likely had a more devout following in the Commonwealth etc than did the UK under Thatcher, so they could harness that, along with domestic opinion in Canada.
 
Oh, and for the specifics...

Unilateral declaration of independence for Canada? Republicanism?

Maybe not. But British reps would be getting some pretty cold stares at whatever international meetings they attended, and eventually the diplomatic pressure would be too much to bear. Canada under Trudeau likely had a more devout following in the Commonwealth etc than did the UK under Thatcher, so they could harness that, along with domestic opinion in Canada.

Would the Queen intervene on Canada's behalf?
 
Would the Queen intervene on Canada's behalf?

Well, she DID intervene on behalf of the Canadian government when the Tories were trying to pass the Goods And Services Tax in the early 90s, and it was being blocked by the unelected Senate. Mulroney had some diplomats in London ask the Queen to add a few more seats to the Upper House(which only she could do, apparently), and they were filled by Tory appointees who then passed the bill.

In that instance, the Queen was arguably intervening on behalf of democratic forces, since the Commons is elected, while the Senate is not. So, I guess the same logic might apply when it's the Canadian government having its will thwarted by a foreign(ie. undemocratic, as far as Canada goes) parliament.
 
It is really, really, really hard to see this happening. The UK would not just be taking an unprecedented intervention into Canada's affairs, but actively denying the right of a de facto sovereign state to become a de jure one. Would there really be a strong movement to do this?

If, by some chance, the UK actually did block it? I imagine a swift declaration of a republic, a bit more wrangling over the new structure and titles, and then ultimately just implementing the Constitution anyway because now it's Canada's right to just draft any document.

Well, she DID intervene on behalf of the Canadian government when the Tories were trying to pass the Goods And Services Tax in the early 90s, and it was being blocked by the unelected Senate. Mulroney had some diplomats in London ask the Queen to add a few more seats to the Upper House(which only she could do, apparently), and they were filled by Tory appointees who then passed the bill.

No, this is wrong. Mulroney used a little-known, but clearly existent clause in the Constitution Act, 1867 that allows the PM to appoint 4 or 8 extra senators (their seats are nor permanent additions; when they retire, so to will their seat). The Queen didn't do anything, except in the legal sense that she (by way of her Governor General) is signing off on senatorial appointments.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba secede along with Newfoundland, Labrador and New Brunswick and request to become U.S. states. Prince Edward Island declares independence and announces it will become a tax haven.

Shortly afterward, seeing the end in sight, Ontario joins them. The Northwest Territories are combined with Alaska. Nunavat becomes a U.S. territory.

Left on their own Quebec declares independence. Montreal declares independence from Quebec, becoming a Singapore style city-state.

After 206 years, the original goals of the Founding Fathers are realized. The USA covers North America from the Rio Grande to the North Pole.



OR

Everyone yawns and the bill is reintroduced during the next session of Parliament and passes.
 
BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba secede along with Newfoundland, Labrador and New Brunswick and request to become U.S. states. Prince Edward Island declares independence and announces it will become a tax haven.

Shortly afterward, seeing the end in sight, Ontario joins them. The Northwest Territories are combined with Alaska. Nunavat becomes a U.S. territory.

Left on their own Quebec declares independence. Montreal declares independence from Quebec, becoming a Singapore style city-state.

After 206 years, the original goals of the Founding Fathers are realized. The USA covers North America from the Rio Grande to the North Pole.

Now this would make an excellent end of Canada TL!

Though joining the North West Territories with Alaska would make for one hell of a state in size terms :eek:

OR

Everyone yawns and the bill is reintroduced during the next session of Parliament and passes.

But then you had go and inject some boring old realism into it ;):p
 
No, this is wrong. Mulroney used a little-known, but clearly existent clause in the Constitution Act, 1867 that allows the PM to appoint 4 or 8 extra senators (their seats are nor permanent additions; when they retire, so to will their seat). The Queen didn't do anything, except in the legal sense that she (by way of her Governor General) is signing off on senatorial appointments.

I thought in this case (ie, the addition of Senators) had to be done by the Monarch and not the GG?
 
I thought in this case (ie, the addition of Senators) had to be done by the Monarch and not the GG?
Only in the legal fiction.

Section 26 specifically mentions the GG:

If at any Time on the Recommendation of the Governor General the Queen thinks fit to direct that Three or Six Members be added to the Senate, the Governor General may by Summons to Three or Six qualified Persons (as the Case may be), representing equally the Three Divisions of Canada, add to the Senate accordingly.

(Note that this has been amended to be four divisions, rather than three, and likewise to be four or eight members.)
 
It is really, really, really hard to see this happening. The UK would not just be taking an unprecedented intervention into Canada's affairs, but actively denying the right of a de facto sovereign state to become a de jure one. Would there really be a strong movement to do this?

If, by some chance, the UK actually did block it? I imagine a swift declaration of a republic, a bit more wrangling over the new structure and titles, and then ultimately just implementing the Constitution anyway because now it's Canada's right to just draft any document.



No, this is wrong. Mulroney used a little-known, but clearly existent clause in the Constitution Act, 1867 that allows the PM to appoint 4 or 8 extra senators (their seats are nor permanent additions; when they retire, so to will their seat). The Queen didn't do anything, except in the legal sense that she (by way of her Governor General) is signing off on senatorial appointments.

From the Law Society Of Saskatchewan...

In October, 1990, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney used an obscure, never-before implemented section of the Constitution – section 26 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which allowed him to ask Queen Elizabeth II to approve the appointment of 8 extra senators.

If the Queen was just giving her usual rubber-stamp via the GG, why do they frame it in terms of Mulroney "ask[ing] Queen Elizabeth II to approve" the appointments? That's not normally how the Queen's role is discussed.

And from CBC...

Liberal Senators have vowed to kill the Conservative government's bill to establish a goods and services tax. But they are caught off-guard when Prime Minister Brian Mulroney uses an obscure power to make eight appointments, creating an instant Conservative majority in the Senate. The unprecedented move, made with the consent of the Queen, has the Opposition fuming with outrage.

Again, this makes it sound very much like the Queen had a real choice whether or not to approve the new seats. I also have what I think is a pretty clear memory of reporting at the time, talking about the activities of Canadian diplomats in London to get the seats approved.

link

link
 
Huh. Well that is a very odd sequence of events; it's not common for a PM to go over the GG directly to the Queen. But this approach wasn't necessary; Section 26 is clear that the Queen appoints on advise of her GG on the issue, and not that it's a power she reserves for herself.

So why did Mulroney appeal to the Queen? I can only speculate, but it could be 1) that he didn't think GG Sauvé (a Liberal MP and appointee) would be receptive to his demand; 2) that he sought the advice of someone deeply knowledgeable about the Constitution (Trudeau and Chrétien both have noted that the Queen was the Briton most invested and knowledged on the Constitutional debate during the 80s) or 3) that he thought it would give a greater legitimacy to the appointments. For her part, I don't think Elizabeth had much of a say; she is ultimately bound to follow what her PMs wish.
 
Huh. Well that is a very odd sequence of events; it's not common for a PM to go over the GG directly to the Queen. But this approach wasn't necessary; Section 26 is clear that the Queen appoints on advise of her GG on the issue, and not that it's a power she reserves for herself.

So why did Mulroney appeal to the Queen? I can only speculate, but it could be 1) that he didn't think GG Sauvé (a Liberal MP and appointee) would be receptive to his demand; 2) that he sought the advice of someone deeply knowledgeable about the Constitution (Trudeau and Chrétien both have noted that the Queen was the Briton most invested and knowledged on the Constitutional debate during the 80s) or 3) that he thought it would give a greater legitimacy to the appointments. For her part, I don't think Elizabeth had much of a say; she is ultimately bound to follow what her PMs wish.

The GG in October 1990 was a Tory.

There isn't a lot of information about this particular incident on the net(one of my googles turned up this very thread near the top). My recollection of it is that going to London was something that the government had to do, according to the law, not just something that was more expedient for them to do. I'd be interested to hear from anyone else who was around at that time, or knows about constitutional law.
 
If it had failed to pass that would probably be because Trudeau failed to get sufficient agreement from the provinces, in which case he either makes accommodations and the Canada Act of 1983 passes with most Canadians saying thankful things about the Mother Country for serving as a check on Trudeau's excesses.

Or Trudeau elects to whip up anti-British sentiment and tries to do something unilaterally, this triggers a constitutional crisis, angry ruling from the Supreme Court, probably every provincial government refusing to acknowledge his constitution, fury from the opposition and it is simply a mess. He is remembered as the man who brought the country to the brink of destruction and no one will touch the constitution with a ten foot pole.

Given how many people opposed the Canada Act (and how Westminster would only vote it down if the opposition was stronger) this certainly wouldn't result in a republic. Trudeau may very well attempt to make it so, and the chaos could easily embolden Quebec separatism, but he really couldn't just push it through.

More likely in that case he would try and go over the province's heads and hold a referendum to justify his plans which I suspect he would lose.
 
Man, CalBear's post would make for an excellent TL, if it hasn't made into one already!

However, I think the act was but a formality. I don't think the Queen had intervened personally in Canadian politics for many decades.
 
If it had failed to pass that would probably be because Trudeau failed to get sufficient agreement from the provinces, in which case he either makes accommodations and the Canada Act of 1983 passes with most Canadians saying thankful things about the Mother Country for serving as a check on Trudeau's excesses.

This. It probably wouldn't be difficult to keep several of the provinces opposed to the bill. You'd just have to keep a few of the compromises out of the final bill. Have it balanced too far in favour of Ottawa, fail to include the notwithstanding clause, couple other minor changes. The trick would be to have it get that far with the widespread opposition rather than have it torpedoed before London gets a chance to weigh in. The failure of an unreasonable version of the act would, of course, be followed by one that is much, much more conservative and reasonable. It would likely be the BNA Act revised so that Canada is fully sovereign rather mostly sovereign. The most notable deletion would probably be the charter, which IMO would be an improvement.

Or Trudeau elects to whip up anti-British sentiment and tries to do something unilaterally, this triggers a constitutional crisis, angry ruling from the Supreme Court, probably every provincial government refusing to acknowledge his constitution, fury from the opposition and it is simply a mess. He is remembered as the man who brought the country to the brink of destruction and no one will touch the constitution with a ten foot pole.

Well, come the '90s and the failed attempts at fixing Trudeau's mess, no one wanted to touch it anyways. Trudeau being his usual pissy self would just bring that about a decade earlier. Trudeau failing outright would also be better than OTL.

Given how many people opposed the Canada Act (and how Westminster would only vote it down if the opposition was stronger) this certainly wouldn't result in a republic. Trudeau may very well attempt to make it so, and the chaos could easily embolden Quebec separatism, but he really couldn't just push it through.

More likely in that case he would try and go over the province's heads and hold a referendum to justify his plans which I suspect he would lose.

If Mulroney couldn't pass his changes via referendum, Trudeau's more radical move would definitely fail. And then Trudeau's premiership implodes a year early. Turner might actually have time to save the Liberal Party's furniture in the next election rather than lead them to their second worst finish of all time.
 
Top