As far as I'm concerned, the Constitution should define how the government is constituted, not restrict what the government can do.
That's because you folks are still owned by Her Majesty and run by the government the Crown decided was best for you since you are incapable of governing yourselves.
Now down here in the real world we kicked His Majesty's hind quarters back to England and formed our own government our own way. The first one wasn't so good so we did this constitution thing with the expressed purpose of constituting a government as well as putting limits on what those scoundrels in government could do. Even that wasn't a hard enough restriction after what His Royal Snottiness had done to us so we appended even more sever restrictions on the scoundrels telling them precisely where they could not poke their dirty snotty arrogant little noses.
Even though they may be necessary for the proper functioning of the universe majorities are known to go bad and governments are known to be worse. Placing ones rights at the beck and call of some central government, or worse yet, at the emotional whimsy of the popular majority, is exactly what we were bound by experience to avoid.
We wanted rights that accrued to us as citizens as a matter of inalienable law that served us not some privileges temporarily extended to us from a government seen as separate and superior to us. Set the people's rights in concrete and make it damn difficult for some wayward government or some brainwashed impassioned majority to usurp those rights. Only when there is a clear consensus of a super-majority of
We The People can our rights, the good ones and the ones that have become problematic, be usurped.
Maybe when you Canucks grow up you can have a government of your own too.