Meaning: This quote by Stockwell Day, a Canadian politician, reflects a perspective on the relationship between Canada and Britain, particularly regarding the Constitution and the formal right to change it. Day's statement suggests that as long as the British maintained control over Canada's fundamental documents and retained the formal authority to amend them, any changes to Canada's system would be cautious and intentional. This quote touches on the historical and constitutional ties between Canada and Britain, as well as the implications of these connections for the evolution of Canada's governance.

Canada's constitutional framework has deep historical roots tied to its colonial past and subsequent evolution into a modern, independent nation. The British North America Act of 1867, now known as the Constitution Act, established Canada as a self-governing dominion within the British Empire, with its own parliament and system of governance. However, ultimate authority over the Canadian constitution remained with the British Parliament until the passage of the Canada Act in 1982, which granted Canada full control over its constitution, including the power to amend it.

Before 1982, the formal right to change Canada's constitution rested with the British Parliament, which meant that any alterations to the fundamental laws of the country required British approval. Day's quote reflects an understanding of the cautious approach to constitutional change that this arrangement may have fostered. With the ultimate authority residing outside of Canadian borders, the process of amending the constitution would likely have been subject to careful consideration and thorough deliberation, as any proposed changes would need to navigate the scrutiny and decision-making of a foreign legislative body.

The notion that the British possession of Canada's basic documents and the formal right to alter them would lead to careful and deliberate changes in Canada's system can be seen as a commentary on the perceived influence of external oversight on the stability and evolution of Canadian governance. Day's perspective suggests that the presence of an external authority, with the power to modify the fundamental laws of the country, acted as a check on rapid or hasty alterations to the Canadian system. This notion aligns with the idea that a degree of external oversight or approval can encourage prudence and circumspection in the process of constitutional change.

However, it's important to note that Day's quote reflects a specific historical context and a particular viewpoint on the impact of external authority on Canada's constitutional evolution. The transition to full control over its constitution in 1982 marked a significant milestone in Canada's legal and political autonomy, enabling the country to assert its sovereignty and take full responsibility for its constitutional framework. The repatriation of the constitution represented a pivotal moment in Canada's history, signifying its emergence as a fully independent and self-determining nation.

In conclusion, Stockwell Day's quote captures a perspective on the relationship between Canada and Britain in the context of constitutional authority and the process of governance. It reflects an understanding of the potential influence of external oversight on the careful and deliberate evolution of Canada's system. While the quote speaks to a specific historical period and a particular set of circumstances, it sheds light on the complex dynamics of constitutional development and the implications of external authority for a nation's governance. As Canada continues to shape its constitutional framework and navigate its place in the global community, the historical legacy of external oversight and the transition to full sovereignty serve as important touchstones in understanding the evolution of its constitutional system.