1 Upholding Tradition: Op-Ed John R. Jackson Department of Political Studies, University of Avelton POLS 109: Canadian Political Institutions Professor Henry McDaniels January 17, 2018 Upholding Tradition: Op-Ed 2 Canadas constitution is known to be particularly difficult to amend, and as such, Canada has seen very little change to it’s constitution since the patriation of the constitution in 1982 (Albert, n.d.). The General Amending Formula, sometimes referred to as the “7/50” rule, sets high barriers and requirements for constitutional change to take place, and for good reason. The constitution affects every single Canadian citizen and thus changes to it need to consider, and benefit, the overwhelming majority of the Canadian population. The General Amending Formula requires the agreement of 7 of the 10 provinces containing at least 50% of the population, and the approval of the Senate and House of Commons. These lofty requirements for amending the constitution can make change difficult, however change should be difficult when making such impactful decisions. It is pertinent that amendments to the constitution be properly fleshed out and agreed upon by a clear majority of Canadians. Therefore the “7/50” rule is the ideal amending formula to use when attempting to make an amendment to the Canadian Constitution. One of the main critiques of the General Amending Formula is that the distributions of power among provinces is unfairly distributed due to the wide range of populations between provinces. Ontario and Quebec hold the most power in this system due to their high populations of 14.8 million and 8.6 million respectively (“Population Estimates”, 2022). While this means that for any amendment to go through one of these two provinces must agree to it, it does make sense when considering the will of the Canadian populous itself. It would hardly be fair to have an amending formula that simply required the agreement of any seven provinces, as that could potentially only reflect the views of as few as 9.5 million Canadians, meaning that only 25% of the population could make decisions on behalf of the entire country (“Population Estimates”, 2022). Due to the spread of the Canadian population throughout Canada, there will always be a power imbalance among the provinces, but it power imbalance makes sense as the rules and laws Upholding Tradition: Op-Ed 3 that govern Canada should be in the best interest of the majority, and this is what the “7/50” rule attempts to do. Despite the enormous difference in population between a province such as Ontario and Newfoundland their Banzhaf Power Indices (BPI) aren’t as disparate as their populations. When D. Marc Kilgour calculated each provinces respective BPI in 1983, a method for comparing relative decision-making power in a system that utilizes weighted voting, Ontario had a score of 0.1234, and Newfoundland had a score of 0.929 (Flanagan, 1996). This meant that at the time Ontario had only 33% more power than the smallest eastern provinces (Flanagan, 1996). The current amending formula tries to manage the population imbalance while still giving greater say to the majority. Another issue that some have with the “7/50” rule is that it is slow and inefficient. While it may have high requirements, it is beneficial that the constitution be difficult to change. The constitution is very important and thus changes to it should be seldom and amended only when it reflects the will of the majority of provinces and population. By making amending formula intentionally inefficient the authors are helping to protect constitution from ever shifting political pressures and trends. By having amendments to the constitution easy to make it opens up the possibility of additions to the constitution which hurt Canada as a whole. Political parties could utilize easier amening formulas to potentially alter the roles of the House of Commons as well as Senate in order to better carry out their agendas. The point is that the constitution applies to all Canadians and as such it should be difficult to change due to the large-scale impact it would have across the country. The constitution should only be changed at the will of a clear majority. The articles in the constitution are ones that are meant to last long periods of time indicating that any changes to the constitution should be taken very seriously and that they require a certain level of agreement amongst the Canadian population. The high barriers set by Upholding Tradition: Op-Ed the “7/50” amending formula are intentionally there to prevent frivolous amendments to the constitution. The “7/50” rule makes it possible to amend the constitution, but also does a good job of protecting it from non-essential amendments. 4 Upholding Tradition: Op-Ed 5 References Albert, R. (n.d.). The Difficulty of Constitutional Amendment in Canada. Alberta Review. Retrieved October 17, 2022, from https://albertalawreview.com/index.php/ALR/article/view/281/279 Flanagan, T. (1996). Amending the Canadian Constitution: A Mathematical Analysis. Constitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel. Retrieved October 17, 2022, from https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/constitutional_forum/index.php/constitutional_forum/art icle/view/12047 Government of Canada, Statistics Canada. (2022, September 28). Population Estimates, quarterly. Statistics Canada. Retrieved October 17, 2022, from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000901
