PhD candidate Warren Newman is Senior General Counsel in Canada’s Department of Justice – Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section, and teaches Comparative Constitutional Law at Queen’s. He has appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada in landmark cases and is now taking an in-depth look at the amendment procedures of the Constitution in his doctoral dissertation.
PhD candidate Warren Newman is Senior General Counsel in Canada’s Department of Justice – Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section, and teaches Comparative Constitutional Law at Queen’s. He has appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada in landmark cases and now for his doctoral dissertation he is taking an in-depth look at the Constitution's amendment procedures.

Highlighting his 35 years of practice, Warren Newman has represented the Attorney General of Canada before the Supreme Court of Canada in several significant constitutional law cases. Named Advocatus Emeritus by the Quebec Bar for his career contributions to the legal profession, he has also received an Award of Distinction from the Minister of Justice for his commitment to Canada’s linguistic and legal duality. Most recently, he has published an article in the Oxford Handbook of the Canadian Constitution (Oxford University Press, 2017) and given expert testimony to the European Parliament’s Constitutional Affairs Committee this summer.
  
He’s now in his final year of doctoral studies at Queen’s Law, where he has taught the Comparative Constitutional Law course over the past 14 years. In his dissertation, he is taking an in-depth look at the amendment procedures of Canada’s Constitution, proposing that these procedures have dual purposes that reflect other tensions in the Constitution. 

In an interview with Queen’s Law Reports, Warren Newman talks about his research, teaching and Supreme Court experiences. 

What interested you in your area of law? 

The field of constitutional law has been an interest of mine since I first began university studies in history and political science, and then, as I progressed through law school, that interest bloomed into a passion and then a vocation. My primary interest and expertise lie in the relationship between the written and unwritten provisions of the Constitution of Canada. Those principles include constitutionalism and the rule of law, federalism and democracy, parliamentary sovereignty and responsible government, the separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers, and substantive equality and the protection of minorities.  

Tell us about your research. 

My research for my doctoral dissertation examines the basic institutional structure of the Constitution of Canada through the lens of the Constitution’s written amending procedures. The thesis proposes that the amending procedures serve a dual purpose, which are always in a form of tension. The first purpose is to permit the amendment of the Constitution by following the relevant procedure. The second, is generally to prevent the amendment of the Constitution except in cases of substantial consensus, and thus to protect certain key institutions, provisions or principles. These dual purposes reflect other tensions in the Constitution; for example, between constitutional provisions and constitutional principles – between the written and the unwritten. The dual purposes of the amending procedures were especially at play when the previous federal government brought forward several legislative measures such as fixed-date elections legislation, the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, amendments to the Supreme Court Act, and several Senate reform bills. In striking down amendments to the Supreme Court Act and most of the Senate reform measures, the Supreme Court relied upon a structural understanding of the Constitution’s framework, or “internal architecture,” including the amending procedures, to limit the extent to which Parliament could reform its upper house.

How have your experiences before the Supreme Court had an impact on your research? 

As a constitutional lawyer with the federal Department of Justice, I have been fortunate to appear as co-counsel before trial and appellate courts, as well as before the Supreme Court of Canada, notably in the Manitoba Language Rights Reference, the Quebec Secession Reference and the Senate Reform Reference. Those latter reference cases led to landmark opinions by the Supreme Court on key issues such as the rule of law, the protection of minorities, the place of Quebec within Canada, and the reform of central institutions. Providing legal advice and working on legal arguments presented to the Court gave me deeper insight into the challenges and opportunities relating to legal and political constitutionalism in Canada. I had already begun to write academically about the nature and scope of constitutional amendments, and several of my law journal articles were cited by the Supreme Court. This also encouraged me to explore the underlying theoretical issues further.  

What do you enjoy most about teaching Comparative Constitutional Law at Queen's?

I have been teaching Comparative Constitutional Law at Queen’s since 2004, first, as a sessional lecturer, and more recently, as a teaching fellow. Comparative Constitutional Law is a vast domain. What I most enjoy about teaching is the challenge of presenting complex concepts in a principled and accessible way without losing rigour or precision. I take great pleasure in learning from my students as they become interested in the readings and begin to present the fruits of their own research as they develop and draft their term papers.

Why did you choose Queen’s Law for you PhD studies? 

I chose Queen’s Law for my doctoral studies because of its strong tradition in constitutional law; Queen’s has included such leaders as Deans W.R. Lederman, Daniel Soberman and John Whyte, and innovative scholars such as Professors Bev Baines, Don Stuart, Tsvi Kahana, Cherie Metcalf and my supervisor, Mark Walters, as well as recent, promising scholars such as Grégoire Webber and Jacob Weinrib. As well, I have enjoyed the collegial and congenial atmosphere, both amongst the professors and the administrative support staff: Nick Bala, Martha Bailey, Arthur Cockfield, Nancy Somers, Melissa Howlett, Dianne Flint and many others were always there to say hello. Finally, I was impressed with the leadership of the Dean, Bill Flanagan, and am impressed as well with the Associate Deans, including, most currently, Joshua Karton and Erik Knutsen. 

Where are you from? What do you enjoy doing outside of the courtroom and the classroom? 

I am originally from Montreal, Quebec, although I have made the Ottawa/Gatineau area my home for the past 36 years. And I very much enjoy Kingston. Outside of the courtroom, classroom, and office, I enjoy reading (mainly history), watching films (mainly classics), listening to music (mainly jazz and classical), participating in family dinners and social events, and physical exercise (to counter some of the sedentary effects of the other categories).

Watch Warren Newman talk about his research on Facebook.