Sunday, October 17th, 2021

POLS*3210

Blake Fischer

1014713

Critical Analysis of Ronald L. Watts’ Article “Canada: Three Decades of Periodic Federal

Crisis”

Over the course of many decades, Canada has experienced what many refer to as a

“constitutional crisis” as endless attempts have been made towards provincial consensus on

constitutional matters with success. In his article “Canada: Three Decades of Periodic Federal

Crisis” Author Ronald L. Watts attempts to identify reasons leading to a long period of

constitutional crisis in Canada as he outlines many instances where constitutional negotiations

failed. In this paper, I will critically analyze Watts’ article “Canada: Three Decades of Periodic

Federal Crisis”. I will do so by first providing a summary of his article outlining the many

attempts made to gain provincial consensus on constitutional matters. I will then evaluate and

highlight arguments from the article that I find convincing, as well as identify weaknesses the

article possesses. Finally, I will provide my own personal thoughts and perspectives on the

article through outlining it’s current-day relevance.

In his article, “Canada: Three Decades of Periodic Federal Crisis” Ronald L. Watts

outlines how Canada has experienced many periods of constitutional crisis spanning over a

matter of decades. From the early 1960s to the late 1990s when this article was written, Watts

1
asserts that Canada has struggled from a constitutional crisis due to the conflict between political

actors from Quebec fighting for a more sovereign, autonomous state and actors on the other end

of the spectrum advocating for a reinforced sense of importance of the federal Government of

Canada (Watts, 1996). Watts starts his work off by first identifying the evolution of the Canada

Federation prior to the year 1960 as a time of nation/province building with extensive

intergovernmental interaction between federal and provincial governments (Watts, 1996).

Throughout the following three decades, Watts identifies many combating perspectives

that existed within political actors. On one hand, provinces such as Quebec advocated for the

decentralization of power away from the Federal Government as they felt as though it was

imperative for Canada to truly be a bicameral nation. Conversely, many other provinces

advocated for the centralization of power within the Federation in order to promote social

benefits and equalization initiatives (Watts, 1996). As a result, Watts identifies how many rounds

of constitutional deliberations during The Victoria Charter (1963-1971), The Constitution Act

(1982), The Meech Lake Accord (1987-1990), and The Charlottetown Agreement (1991-1992)

occurred as the provinces attempted to renegotiate the constitution with the Federal Government.

Unfortunately, most of these attempts to renegotiate the constitution failed as a unanimous

decision was not reached. It is important to note that The Constitution Act of 1982 is seen as a

small victory as the constitution was patriated, however Quebec did not sign off on the act

(Watts, 1996).

In his work, Watts provides many convincing arguments and perspectives to explain why

Canada has experienced many decades of constitutional crisis. For starters, Watts believes that

prolonged constitutional crisis in Canada can be attributed to structural and procedural factors.

Specifically, Watts outlines four main structural factors that have led to prolonged constitutional

2
crisis in Canada: internal ethno-cultural relations, the character of the Canadian economy, the

combination of federalism with a parliamentarian system, and the erosion of beliefs that had

previously united Canada together (Watts, 1996). Specifically, I found the first two structural

factors outlined by Watts to be very convincing when accounting for prolonged constitutional

crisis in Canada.

For starters, Watts believes that the dicey relationships between French Canadians,

Indigenous peoples, and immigrants with the rest of Canada has played a significant role in the

prevalence of constitutional crisis for many decades. Instances of linguistic and cultural

insecurity has led these identifiable groups, especially citizens of Quebec to be hesitant towards

agreeing on constitutional provisions (Watts, 1996). As a result of these insecurities and feelings

of exclusion and discrimination, Quebec has been very hesitant towards agreeing upon federal

matters as they feel as though power should be decentralized away from the Federal Government

for the provinces to have more decision-making power. Quebec’s feelings of distaste are proven

as they have held two referendum votes in 1980 and 1995 with the second one nearly passing

(Watts, 1996). Thus, Watts is accurate in outlining Quebec’s reservations as a leading cause for a

prolonged period of constitutional crisis as their feelings of discrimination have led them to want

a more decentralized system rather than to cooperate in constitutional matters (Watts, 1996).

Another convincing account for the prolonged period of constitutional crisis in Canada

presented by Watts is how regional variations within Canada’s economy have made it difficult

for the provinces to come to agreeance on constitutional matters. Since Canada is such a large

geographical area, economic disparities exist across different provincial regions within the

country. Western provinces are the highest producers in forestry and oil, the prairie provinces are

known for their agricultural production, Ontario and Quebec are known for their manufacturing

3
productions, and the eastern provinces are most famous for their fisheries. In his article, Watts

identifies how vastly different the economic needs are of different regions in Canada

(Watts,1996). Due to the varying differences in the production of goods, population size, and

many other economic factors, a prolonged period of constitutional crisis arose as economic

regions in Canada had different opinions on matters such as equalization and taxation (Watts,

1996).

Although Watts’ article provides us with many convincing explanations as to why

Canada experienced such a long period of constitutional crisis, his work does have some

weaknesses. Firstly, I feel as though Watts focused too heavily on the role of Quebec throughout

the mid to late 1900s and failed to account for other actors within the situation. There is no

denying that Quebec has played a major role in making constitutional deliberations difficult,

evident through the way in which they support decentralization and the fact that they were the

only province not to sign off on The Constitution Act of 1982. However, I feel as though Watts’

work singles them out as the reason that the many attempts to renegotiate the constitution failed.

I feel as though Watts could have elaborated further on issues presented at the many

constitutional negotiations.

For example, more attention should have been given to the desire for indigenous self-

government at the Charlottetown Accord in 1991-1992. Although the Charlottetown Accord was

known as the “Quebec round”, many other important issues were addressed during these

deliberations (Watts, 1996). Even though it may not have been seen as a major issue at the time,

I feel as though Watts overlooked the desire of Indigenous individuals to obtain indigenous self-

government and he failed to mention the impact this factor had on constitutional deliberations

throughout this accord (Watts, 1996).

4
 Moreover, Although I feel as though the procedural factors leading to decades of

constitutional crisis Watts mentioned were accurate, I feel as though he should have elaborated

on them further rather than just briefly mentioning them. Watts mentions that since each

constitutional round spanned over many years, it was difficult to come to a final agreement as

political party representative were everchanging (Watts, 1996). I find this factor very convincing,

however I feel as though the author could have done more to emphasize this point. I feel as

though this is a major explanation for the existence of decades of constitutional crisis in Canada,

however Watts seems to just mention it in passing with a few sentences and does not further

elaborate on the subject.

Additionally, Watts’ article contains a small section outlining reasons why Canada has

not broken up as a federation despite decades of constitutional crisis, however I feel as though

further elaboration and explanation is necessary on this point. Watts attributes Canada staying

together for over a century since the provinces share a common history (Watts, 1996). I

completely agree with this concept, but I feel as though further explanation is needed to clarify

this point. What about a shared common history keeps Canada from breaking apart? Why is a

shared common history important? These, as well as many other questions would enable the

author to explain this important point further.

Overall, Watts’ article “Canada: Three Decades of Periodic Federal Crisis” does a

satisfactory job in explaining the prevalence of constitutional issues within Canada. Watts does

an excellent job in summarizing the history of constitutional conflict within the country as he

outlines the many attempts that have been made over many decades to gain provincial consensus

on constitutional matters (Watts, 1996). I feel as though many of the topics presented in this

article are applicable to current day politics in Canada. Even though this article was published

5
twenty-five years ago, many of the issues mentioned in it still have not been resolved as of today.

For example, Quebec has not signed off on the constitution and separatist/decentralization

supports still prevail within the province. I feel as though the author did an accurate job in

outlining the many rounds of constitutional negotiation and what ultimately led to their failure on

many occasions. Although this article was written many years ago, I feel as though the author

could have done a better job emphasizing Indigenous matters with regards to constitutional

reform in Canada. Moreover, I feel as though the structural factors that the author identified as

the main causes of decades of constitutional crisis were accurate and well explained, however

further explanation regarding procedural factors was needed.

Bibliography

6
Watts, Ronald. (1996). Canada: Three decades of periodic Federal crises. International Political

Science Review, 17(4). Ares.